AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. S. M. Kantikar, J.
This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 28.1.2014 passed in First Appeal No. A/09/06 by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Nagpur (in short, 'the State Commission') whereby the State Commission partly allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum, Chandrapur, Maharashtra.
The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the case are that the complainant, Harshad Vallabhdas Dholkiya, a proprietor of M/s Jyoti Watch Company obtained insurance policy from New India Assurance Company Ltd./OP in July, 1995 covering the risk of theft in his shop. In the intervening night of 14-15.7.1995, theft took place in the shop. The complainant intimated OP 1/insurance company through a telegram, also submitted the claim form with a list of stolen items, copies of FIR and panchnama. The surveyor Mr. D. L. Sisodiya/OP 2 appointed by OP 1 visited the shop of the complainant on 18.7.1995. The surveyor demanded the account statement, certain documents and clarifications whereupon the complainant supplied him the list of stolen articles, copy of complaint made to the police, Panchnama, details of turnover current year and upto 14.7.1995, the balance-sheet of the year 1992-93, 93-94 and 1994-95, the summary of sales, statement of purchases made from January 1995 to July, 1995.
Thereafter also, the OP-2 kept on demanding various documents and delayed the issuance of the report. On 22-10-1996 from OP 1 & 2, the complainant had received two separate letters stating that the earlier details sought by him were not provided. As per letter, OP-1 directed the complainant to keep all records ready for OP 2's was proposed to visit Chandpur on 5-6-1996. but, OP-2 did not visit the complainant on the promised date/ specified date. Thereafter, on 4-2-1997, OP-1 acknowledged the receipt of the necessary papers, but again asked the complainant to send Income Tax Returns, statement of Income and Financial Statement to OP-2. The complainant being displeased by the conduct of Op 1, sent a legal notice dated 31-3-97 to OP 1, threatening to take action under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thereafter, OP-2 visited the shop of the complainant on 13.06.1997 and verified all the documents available with the complainant, alongwith the account books.
The plea of complainant is that the surveyor gave him false impression that claim shall be honoured and for that purpose he made him to write the statement as given on record. Relying the words of OP-2, complaint mentioned certain sale figures and stocks. Later, the complainant realized that OP-2, had dictated wrong purchase figures. So, he wrote a letter to OP-2 giving the correct purchase figures. He also informed that nothing was recovered by the police nor repossessed by the complainant and requested OP-2 to finalize the survey report. Despite submission of documents, the OP 2 sought clarification regarding discrepancies in respect of figures between April, 1995 and July, 1995. Therefore, due to repeated harassment and the deficiency in service by the OP, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Chandrapur.
The complaint was resisted by the OPs by filing a common written version in the District Forum. The OPs submitted that the complaint was to be filed within two years from cause of action. The theft occurred in complainant's shop on 15.7.1995 but the complainant filed the complaint on 26-3-99. Therefore, the complaint is barred by limitation and hence, liable to be rejected. Further, due to non-cooperation of the complainant in submitting the documents for clarification, the claim was not finalized. The surveyor/OP-2, vide letter dated 5-9-1996, had sought clarification, but the complainant failed to do so, but on the other hand, the complainant served a legal notice upon the OPs making baseless demands.
The complainant did not heed to the numerous reminders sent by the OP. Thus, the complainant had himself committed breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. As per terms no. 5 (1)(A) and 5 (1)(B) of the policy, the complainant should have immediately lodged a police complaint, informed the insurance company and within 14 days submitted evidence of the losses occurred. The complainant never supplied the documents nor gave explanation as demanded by OP 2. It was also contended that the sum assured was only for Rs. 4 Lakhs but the final claim made was for Rs.5,24,761/-.
On the basis of pleadings and evidence, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal and directed OP 1 to pay Rs. 1 lakh towards loss sustained by the original complainant, Rs. 1000/- towards mental harassment and Rs.500/- as costs to legal heirs of the deceased/original complainant. Being aggrieved with the quantum of compensation awarded by the State Commission, the complainant has filed the instant revision petition for enhancement of compensation.
We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the State Commission has failed to take notice of the surveyor's false intention. The OP had not settled the claim of complainant even after a lapse of a very long period. Complainant took cash credit loan of Rs.2,28,000/- and in addition there was stock worth Rs.3.50 to Rs. 4 lakhs. The insurance policy coverage was for Rs. 4 lakh. Even after the submission of all the necessary documents to the OP, the OP-2/Surveyor did not submit a survey report and consequently, the claim of the complainant remain unsettled. The counsel submitted that State Commission has awarded very less compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and granted only Rs. 1000/- for mental agony and Rs. 500/- for cost.
Learned counsel for the insurance company/OP-1 submitted that the surveyor, D. L. Sisodiya was deputed to conduct survey, who wrote several letters to the complainant demanding various documents and asked certain questions for clarification of the discrepancies in the statement of account. The complainant failed to produce the documents and did not clarify the same. Therefore, the surveyor could not submit the report to the insurance company. The surveyor died during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore, his name was deleted from the array of parties.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the parties. Perused the stock statements, relevant documents and correspondences between the parties. It is an admitted fact that the Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Mr. D. L. Sisodia was appointed by the OP to conduct survey of complainant's shop premises. During the visit, Surveyor did not demand account statement and necessary documents but the surveyor wrote letters to the complainant between 24.7.1995 to 20.10.1998 and demanded various documents and clarification. According to the complainant, he had supplied the claim form alongwith, copy of FIR and copy of Panchnama, list of stolen articles and the documents of business turn over for previous three years.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, the complainant was put to harassment by OP/insurance company and the surveyor. The claim of complainant was unnecessarily delayed for want of documents. Several correspondence between the surveyor and the complainant took place between 24.07.1995 to 15.06.1998, meaning thereby, for three years, no decision was taken for the claim submitted by the complainant. The OP has not replied to the legal notice also. Thus, it clearly shows the mala fide intention of the Surveyor and the lackadaisical approach of OP-1 as well. Similarly, on perusal of several correspondence, it seems that the complainant was also not vigilant and sincere in furnishing the documents as demanded by the surveyor. Thus, considering the over all factual position, we are of the view that it was a case of contributory negligence. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the State Commission is just and proper.
On the basis of foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in this case. The revision petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.