w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Another v/s Pramod Kumar Jena

    First Appeal No. 194 of 2019

    Decided On, 13 August 2021

    At, Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cuttack

    By, THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR. D.P. CHOUDHURY
    By, PRESIDENT

    For the Appellants: M/s. B.C. Singh, Associate., Advocates. For the Respondent: M/s. P.N. Pattnaik, Associate., Advocates.



Judgment Text

1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant virtually.

2. None appears for the respondent.

3. This appeal is filed under Section 15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-aftercalled the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

4. The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant has purchased shopkeeper’s insurance policy with risk covering from dated. 5.11.2014 to 4.11.2015 on payment of usual premium. It is alleged inter alia that on 24.2.2015 the stock of the unit have been stolen in the night of 24.2.2015.Thereafter the police was informed in the next day and the OP was also informed. The OP sent the surveyor to access the loss. When the surveyor report was sent settling the claim, the complainant did not receive the settled amount. Since, the settlement of amount was less, the complainant did not agree. Alleging about deficiency of service on the part of the OP, the complaint was filed.

5. OP No. 2 has been set ex parte.p

6. The OP No. 1 filed written version stating that the surveyor has already accessedthe loss at Rs. 69,128 but the complainant did not agree to accept same. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No. 1.

7. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the impugned order in thefollowing manner:

Xxxx xxx xxx

“The consumer complaint is allowed against the opposite parties. The opposite parties are directed to pay full claim amount of Rs. 4,00,000 to the complainant along with 6 % interest per annum on dated 8.1.2017 when the OPs surveyor directed the complainant to submit the documents with them. The opposite parties are directed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of order.”

8. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum committed error in law by not going through the written version of the OP. Since, the complainant did not receive the amount, it cannot be said that there is deficiency of service of the OP.

9. Considered the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant, perused the DFRand impugned order.

10. It is admitted fact that during currency of the policy the theft was committed in theshop of complainant and a surveyor has been deputed. It is well settled in law that in absence of any other evidence the surveyor’s report is the final report to conclude same. The surveyor has accessed the loss at Rs. 92,170. There is no lozible reason to show that such amount should be again accessed but not the amount mentioned in the impugned order.

11. As the surveyor’s report shows that Rs. 92,170 by taking the damage portion intoconsideration, there is no any doubt over the OP. Hence, modifying the order of the learned District Forum, this Commission direct OP/appellant to pay Rs. 92,170 to complainant within 45 days from the date of order, failing which the enti

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

re impugned order will be revived. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No cost. Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as if copy of order received from this Commission. DFR be sent back forthwith.
O R