ANITA RANI GOYAL vs MAHESH PRASAD BANSAL

HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. The United India Insurance Company Ltd. is aggrieved by the order dated 5. 5. 2000 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh in Complaint Case No. 280/sc/1991 directing it to pay Rs. 2,27,970 as claimed by the complainant for loss of the stock/machinery along with interest @ 12% p. a. from 1. 2. 1991 till the day of payment, Rs. 1,00,000 as damages, Rs. 50,000 as compensation for mental tension and harassment and an amount of Rs. 25,000 towards cost of litigation.

THE main contention of the appellant is that the State Commission has decided the matter on the basis of the documents filed with the Bank and while the complainant had already given his consent for settling his claim at Rs. 44,500 as full and final settlement and an amount of Rs. 33,375 has been paid to the complainant''s bank by treating the claim as non-standard claim for the reasons stated in the letter dated 19. 7. 1991 sent by the Insurance Company to the PNB, BHEL; consequently, the complainant could not raise any dispute against the Insurance Company. On the other hand this letter accepting the sum of Rs. 44,500 as full and final settlement against the claim of Rs. 2,38,887 has been disputed by the complainant.

This case is lingering from the year 1992. The complaint was decided by the State Commission on 19. 11. 1992 and the appeal was filed before this Commission in 1993. The matter was remanded back to the State Commission and after remand the matter was again decided by the State Commission. Now appeal has been filed before us.

THERE is no dispute that since the complainant/respondent had taken loan by hypothecating stock, etc. the policy had been taken by the complainant''s bank namely, Punjab National Bank, BHEL Brach, Hardwar. There is also no dispute that on 28. 10. 1990 firstly Mr. Deepak Gupta, Surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company and thereafter Mr. M. C. Misra and Mr. P. K. Sharma were appointed to investigate the matter. Certain allegations were made by the complainant against them and after that the Insurance Company appointed Mr. Rakesh Agarwal as Surveyor. We do not approve the way of Surveyors after the Surveyors were appointed. If the complainant/respondent was causing any obstructions or otherwise not co-operating even then the Surveyors could not have been appointed without the approval of the Controller or the Authority under Sub-section (3) of Section 64 UM of the Insurance Act, 1935.

SINCE the matter has been decided on the basis of bank records irrespective of the facts whether the loss was suffered by the complainant or not we cannot accept compensation awarded on this basis. We are also not oblivious to the fact that some margin has to be kept for exaggeration in such cases. Supposing for the sake of argument the stock of papers ranged between 1,16,000 to Rs. 1,78,000 then this stock would also include the papers which had been damaged by fire. Thus, Rs. 21,660 could not have been included by any stretch of imagination as has been done. As regards the submission that entire metallic type material had gone waste, firstly there is no specific evidence in this regard, secondly entire metallic type material used in printing would not melt away as paper would be burnt. It is not acceptable as held by the State Commission that entire type material has been lost and gone waste and after fire fighting operation virtually nothing could be salvaged. As such we think just a sum of Rs. 30,000 would be proper in this case. About loss of machinery and repair, since no receipts, etc. have been produced we are not inclined to accept any loss in regard and machinery or any amount might have been spent for repairs. In view of these circumstances, since the stock ranged between 1,16,000 to Rs. 1,78,000 and it included burnt and semi burnt paper also we are inclined to accept the loss of about Rs. 1,20,000 or so must have been suffered by the complainant and taking into consideration all claims including interest we fix Rs. 1,50,000 in all. As it is admitted that an amount of Rs. 33,375 had already been paid to the Bank and an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 had already been deposited with this Commission in terms of our order dated 28. 11. 2000, it is ordered that the Registry may issue a Bank Draft/pay Order of the amount of Rs. 1,00,000 to the complainant along with accrued interest in the name of Punjab National Bank, BHEL Branch in account of Om Printers and Stationers, Hardwar within a period of four weeks.

IT is submitted by learned Counsel for the complainant on instructions that only an amount of Rs. 66,800 is payable to the Bank by the complainant and the Bank is entitled to claim their dues only. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct the Bank that whatever amount remains balance after adjusting its dues would be paid to the complainant by the Bank.

AFTER payment of Rs. 1 lakh along with accrued interest to the Bank, the entire claim of the respondent would stand satisfied. With these observations the First Appeal is disposed of. Appeal disposed of.