M.THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.7,20,000/- alongwith 18% interest, compensation and cost of Rs.10000/-. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.20.3.2008 in OP.No.2/2007. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 11.4.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order: Opposite party is the appellant.
(2.) The complainant/ respondent, in this appeal, had insured his business premises, and stock, with the opposite arty, for Rs.10 lakhs, between the period 3.12.2004 and 2.12.2005, under the Shopkeepers Insurance Policy, hereafter called the policy. In the Tsunami, which occurred on 26.12.2004, the godown which was insured, badly damaged, including the stock, informed through phone to the opposite party later, under letter dt.29.12.2004. Based upon the policy, ascertaining the insurance coverage also, the Government paid 30% of the insured amount Viz. Rs.2,80,000/-, and the balance amount of RS.7,20,000/-, is to be paid by the insurance company. Despite repeated demands, since the opposite party failed to pay the amount, that should be construed as deficiency in service, and therefore, the complainant is entitled to recover, not only the sum of Rs.720000/- with interest, but also a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs, for mental agony.
(3.) The opposite party/ appellant, admitting the policy coverage, opposed the claim, contending that the complainant neither informed, nor submitted the claim, after the alleged loss on account of Tsunami, that for another premises, when the claim was reported, settled, that since the complainant has not reported the loss or lodged a claim, there was no possibility or chance for the opposite party to settle the claim, and in this view, there is no negligent act or deficiency, that only after two years, based upon fabricated documents, a claim is lodged falsely, which is liable to be dismissed.;