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

Prashant v/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra

Company & Directors' Information:- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93090TN1938GOI000108

Company & Directors' Information:- PRASHANT INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = L15142GJ1983PLC006574

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1941PTC003461

Company & Directors' Information:- PRASHANT (INDIA) PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70101WB1982PTC035012

Company & Directors' Information:- UNITED CORPORATION LIMITED [Liquidated] CIN = U99999TN1942PLC003159

    Revision Petition No. 2111 of 2019

    Decided On, 23 January 2020

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC


    For the Petitioner: Qurratulain, Advocate. For the Respondent: ------

Judgment Text


The complainant / petitioner was running a showroom for sale of TV sets and two-wheelers. On 11.8.2014, several persons allegedly entered his showroom and threw out the goods kept in the showroom. The furniture of the showroom was also damaged, besides taking Rs.1,10,000/ lying in the said showroom. The complainant was dispossessed from the said showroom. Though, an FIR was lodged with the concerned Police Station on the same day, no intimation of the loss was given to the insurer till 17.11.2014 when a letter was sent to the insurer informing it of the alleged loss. The insurer did not appoint a surveyor to assess the loss alleged to have been suffered by the complainant and the claim was not paid. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, which was withdrawn by him on 08.3.2017. A subsequent complaint was filed by him on 10.4.2017, seeking compensation amounting to Rs.20,00,000/- form the insurer.

2. The complaint was resisted by the insurer, which inter-alia stated in its reply that no intimation of the loss had been given to them till 17.11.2014. It was further stated in the written version that when the officers of the insurer visited the showroom on receipt of the said letter, no damage to the said showroom was found by them and therefore, there was no occasion to appoint a surveyor to assess the alleged loss.

3. The District Forum having allowed the consumer complaint, the insurer approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 22.11.2018, the State Commission allowed the appeal and consequently dismissed the consumer complaint. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Commission.

4. As per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the complainant was required to intimate the alleged loss to the insurer immediately after the incident of 11.8.2014 which had happened in his showroom. The case of the petitioner / complainant is that a false FIR had been lodged against him and since he was trying to obtain anticipatory bail, he could not intimate the insurer. I however, find no merit in the said explanation. Nothing prevented the complainant / petitioner from sending a letter to the insurer even if an FIR had been lodged against him. The intimation could also have been sent through an email. Therefore, there is no worthwhile explanation given by the petitioner / complainant for the delay of about three months in intimating the insurer.

5. More importantly, it is an admitted position that the complainant having been dispossessed from the showroom in the incident which happened on 11.8.2014, no evidence of the said incident was available at the spot by the time the intimation of the alleged loss was given to the insurer vide letter dated 17.11.2014. Thus, on account of the delay on the part of the petitioner / complainant in intimating the loss to the insurer, no opportunity was available to the insurer to survey the place of the incident and assess the loss alleged to have been suffered by the complainant. This is the right of the insurer to inspect the spot for the purpose of verifying the claim and assessing the loss, alleged to have been suffered by the insurer. The petitioner / complainant having deprived the insurer of the afore

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

said right, the insurer, in my opinion, was justified in not appointing a surveyor to assess the loss alleged to have been suffered by the complainant. The view taken by the State Commission therefore, does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is therefore, dismissed, with no order as to costs.