New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs SUBHASH KUMAR JAIN

THIS is an appeal filed by the petitioner - Insurance Company against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh whereby the order passed by the District Forum was reversed and the relief was granted to the insured against the Insurance Company.

THE brief facts of the case are that the respondent - Shri Subhash Kumar Jain obtained an insurance policy [category plan policy ''A''] in respect to his house constructed in the fields in village Batrala, Distt. Ropar. THE house which is a residential property had been prior to the policy in question, insured twice earlier with another Insurance Company. THE claim of the respondent arose on account of the damage caused to the said house by floods. THE Insurance Company repudiated the claim after having it surveyed by two Surveyors and having the damage assessed by the two Surveyors. Mainly, there were only two grounds for repudiation i.e. - (i) that the building was under construction and was not being used for residential purpose and there was no electrical wiring or fittings; (ii) the Surveyor found that Fire Policy ''A'' was obtained by the insured by misrepresenting that the building is a residential building whereas the building was not being lived in by any one and the Surveyor found the building to be under construction.

The District Forum which had taken on record evidence, both documentary and oral held on the basis of the records of both the parties and evidence of respondent''s witnesses that it called for detailed examination of witnesses and that it was a fit case to be tried by a Civil Court and, therefore, dismissed the complaint. The District Forum did not stop at that but proceeded further without going into and evaluating the evidence to hold that detailed reasons given in the letter of repudiation are sufficient to rebut any charge of deficiency in service. This by itself in the face of evidence already on record both documentary and oral appears to be a conclusion which is perverse and not tenable in law and has been rightly set aside by the State Commission.

As against the contention in the letter of repudiation the respondents have placed on record and proved, inter alia, the following facts : (i) the house was earlier insured twice with another Insurance Company; (ii) that the house was built in the village fields and the respondent used sometimes the space for his stay; (iii) the Surveyor had recorded statements of Mr. Bhag Singh and Mr. Maha Singh wherein they had stated before him about the damage caused to the house and household articles by the floods.

Also, on record is Annexure P-10 which is a copy of Jamabandi (Revenue Records) relating to the land of the complainant indicating therein the existence of the house on the land recording "Gair Mumkin Makan" which shows that in the house of Jamabandi i.e. in 1993-94 also the house was in existence. (iv) The Annexures P16 to 27 produced on record are the copies of the electricity bills in respect of the payment of electricity charges for the said house. This disproves that there was no electricity.

Insurance Company had also produced evidence in the form of survey report, copy of the insurance policy and some correspondence exchanged with the respondent.

IT is in evidence that the major portion of the house was washed away by the floods and the roof of the remaining portion was also damaged. There was also a provision of septic tank, bath room and WC. IT has been rightly held that the WC and bath room were used by the human beings and not by cattle. The respondent''s vote is also registered in the village and detailed reasons have been given by the State Commission for arriving at the conclusion that the building was a residential house. The evidence that the respondent had been visiting his house and staying there in the fields on occasions has remained unchallenged. The conclusions of the Insurance Company and the Surveyor are contrary to the statements of Mr. Bhag Singh and Mr. Maha Singh which were recorded by the Surveyor only.

THE Insurance Company had appointed two Surveyors. THE first Surveyor, Shri Shingara Singh could not even visit the house. But, Purisons, the 2nd Surveyors gave a detailed assessment of the loss to the building at Rs. 1,92,778/-. THE estimate of the Surveyor who could not visit the site cannot be accepted as reliable. But, the other Surveyor has given a detailed estimate of loss which was placed at Rs. 1,98,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- is assessed as the value of salvage. We consider that the reasons given by the State Commission in reaching its conclusion and setting aside the order of the District Forum cannot be faulted and are upheld. However, the State Commission should have reduced the loss of the building i.e. Rs. 1,92,778/- the value of salvage as assessed by the Surveyor - Purisons i.e. Rs. 30,000/-. Accordingly, we reduce the amount of loss from Rs. 1,92,000/- by a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as value of salvage. Therefore, the amount payable is placed at Rs. 1,62,000/- with interest. We also consider that the rate of interest awarded is on the higher side and accordingly reduce the rate to 12% per annum. Rest of the impugned order is upheld. Appeal of the Insurance Company is disposed of in the above terms. Appeal disposed of accordingly.