PULKIT GENERAL STORE Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case is the complainant and the respondent is the opposite party. The petitioner is a general store run by its proprietor Virendra Kumar and the same was financed by State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur under Pradhan Mantri Rojagar Yojna Scheme through a loan of Rs.70,000. With reference to the loan in question, the store was insured for Rs. 70,000/ - on which premium was paid by the petitioner. Since there was a fire in the store during the policy period, an insurance claim was lodged by the petitioner with the respondent for compensation with reference to the loss suffered by the petitioner in the fire. A surveyor came to be appointed who after investigating the matter assessed the loss and submitted a report to the Insurance Co. After considering the surveyors report and other aspects of the accident, the Insurance Co. passed a claim for Rs. 5,561/ - and remitted the same to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, it was communicated to him that the said amount of Rs. 5,561/ - is just an interim payment and the remaining amount would be processed and paid further. The petitioner was also asked to sign some papers which, according to the petitioner, were in English and the same were signed by him since it was stated that signing the papers was mandatory to receive the payment. The petitioner submits that he cannot read and write in English and the respondent concealed the fact that the paper on which he was required to sign was in full and final settlement and he was misled and being a poor man he accepted the amount under the assurance of the respondent co. However, when he approached the respondent through its local office for remaining payment of the entire claim, he failed to get a positive response from the respondent. Aggrieved by this behavior of the respondent, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum with a prayer to award him a sum of Rs.59,375/ - in his favour as the shop was insured by the respondent.

(2.) ON appraisal of the issues and the evidence adduced and hearing the parties, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the petitioner and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.40,439/ - with interest @ 9% p.a. to the petitioner from the date of filing of the complaint.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, an appeal came to be filed by the respondent before the State Commission challenging the same. The State Commission vide its impugned order dated 22.2.2007 allowed the appeal of the respondent and set aside the order of the District Forum. The petitioner has challenged this impugned order through the present revision petition.