Shivaji Rambhau Mali vs Assistant Manager New India Insurance Co Ltd

THIS appeal is directed against the Order dated 10.6.93 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra by which the opposite party was directed to settle the complainant''s claim of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the complainant, a cultivator planted grapes within a area of 2 1/2 acres of land at Taluka Parli, Vaijnath. The complainant obtained an insurance policy issued by the opposite party New India Insurance Company Ltd. to cover the loss of grapes crops. The policy pertained to the year 1988 -89 and also for the year 1989 -90. The complainant alleged that due to unseasonal rains, the complainant''s grapes crop was damaged during the years 1989 -89 and 1989 -90. The complainant brought the matter to the knowledge of Branch Manager of the opposite party No. 3 but no survey was done. The survey was carried out at a later stage and despite repeated demands the claim of the complainant was not settled. According to the complainant, he suffered a loss of Rs. 2.00 lakhs for the aforesaid two years for his grapes crops. The opposite party offered an amount of Rs. 28,160/ - only against the claim for the year 1988 - 89. The complainant further alleged that his claim for the year 1989 -90 had not at all been settled by the opposite party and that there had been deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and claimed Rs. 2,00,000/ - towards the loss of crop with 18% interest.

NEEDLESS to say that the opposite party opposed the complainant''s claim by filing written version. As per case set up by the opposite party, there was no delay in assessing loss caused to the complainant through Surveyors. An offer of Rs. 28,160/ - was made in full and filial settlement for the year 1988 -98 as the claim for the year 1989 -90 was not considered. Parties were given opportunities to place the relevant material in support of their respective contentions. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the material on record, the State Commission returned the finding that there had been serious deficiency in service of the opposite party. The opposite party reduced the amount payable under the insurance policy arbitrarily, unfairly and did not settle the claim within reasonable expedition. The opposite party was found guilty of deficiency in service towards the complainant. As a result thereof, the complaint was allowed and opposite party was directed to settle the complainant''s claim at Rs. 1.00 lakhs. Further direction was given that the payment would be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of the Order failing which the opposite party would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the awarded amount of Rs. 1.00 lakh till realisation.

THE opposite party had not assailed the Order of the State Commission. However, the complainant being aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission, has preferred this appeal before us.

WE have heard the complainant. The grievance made by the complainant in this appeal is that the State Commission ought to have granted the damages for mental torture to which the complainant was put to suffer due to unreasonable attitude of the opposite party. The State Commission ought to have allowed interest on the claim amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ - from the period of three months just after the end of harvesting season. The State Commission ought to have awarded damages for respondent No. 4 i.e., the Branch manager, Beed District Central Co -operative Bank Ltd. The grievance was also made that the costs had not been allowed by the State Commission. We have considered the grievances of the complainant and perused the records of the case. In our opinion, the grievances raised in this appeal have no merit. The State Commission has awarded the compensation after considering all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned Order is based on the material placed before the State Commission and is supported by cogent reasons. The Order under appeal does not suffer from legal infirmity which may call for our interference. In view of this, we find no merit in the appeal. As a result, the appeal is dismissed. We leave the parties to bear their respective costs. Appeal dismissed.