- (1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 22.3.2005 passed by the District Forum, Pauri Garhwal directing the appellant - insurer to pay compensation of Rs. 1,91,257.80 towards loss of property in the fire and Rs. 5,000 towards expenses of the litigation, physical and mental shock together with interest @ 9% in case these sums were not paid within a period of thirty days from the date of the said order.
(2.) CONSUMER Complaint No. 2 of 2004 was filed by M/s. S.K. Trading Co. a firm and its partners. The firm deals in the retail business of loose cotton, cotton waste, cloth and sports goods at their shop situated at Patel Marg, Kotdwar. The firm had its stock of the goods in a rented godown situated at Suman Marg, Kotdwar and it was covered by fire policy taken from the appellant. The sum insured under the fire policy was Rs. 2,50,000 and the same was effective from 9.9.2002 to 8.9.2003. In the night between 14th/15th January, 2003, fire broke out in the godown and according to the complainants, ten bags of loose cotton and one bag of loose cotton waste were totally burnt and whereas ten bags of loose cotton were damaged by the water thrown over the same to put off the fire and to control it. The complainants alleged to have suffered a loss of Rs. 1,91,257.80 and, therefore, made a claim for indemnification by the appellant. The appellant repudiated the claim on the ground that the loss suffered was not covered under the policy inasmuch as there was no insurance cover in regard to the damage by fire to loose cotton of the complainants and that only stock of cotton waste, cloth and sports goods of total value of Rs. 2,50,000 were covered under the fire policy taken by the complainants. This plea was also taken in defence by the appellant.
(3.) THE District Forum on an appreciation of the evidence on record accepted the contention of the complainants by observing that in the event of an ambiguity in the policy, the same has to be interpreted in the manner favourable to the insured and thereby accepted the contention that stock of loose cotton was also covered under the policy of insurance and went on to award to the complainants compensation of Rs. 1,91,257.80 towards loss of the goods in the fire and Rs. 5,000 towards mental and physical suffering and expenses of the litigation as stated above. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred this appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the material on record in the light of the factual and legal aspects of the case. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant may be divided into following points : (i) Whether the finding of the District Forum that under the policy clause of the insurance, the risk to the loose cotton in stock was also covered is incorrect and is based on improper appreciation of the policy of insurance and its interpretation? (ii) Whether the compensation awarded is excessive and exorbitant and the District Forum was not justified in not accepting the loss assessed by the Investigator/Surveyor vide his report dated 2.3.2003? Point No. (i);