Case nº Revision Petition No. 4946 of 2012 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, November 18, 2013 (case Govind Agrawal Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.)

JudgeFor Appellant: Party-in-Person and Mr. S.M. Tripathi, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. V.P.S. Ahluwalia and Mr. H.C. Kapoor, Advocates for the Respondent No. 3
PresidentAjit Bharihoke, J. (Presiding Member) and Suresh Chandra, Member
Resolution DateNovember 18, 2013
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


Suresh Chandra, Member

  1. This revision petition has been filed by Shri Govind Agrawal who is the original complainant challenging the order dated 28.9.2012 passed by Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna in First Appeal No. 336/2011 whereby the State Commission partly accepted the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and set aside the order passed by the District Forum on 6.6.2011 in Consumer Complaint No. 78/2010 and modified the relief earlier granted by the District Forum. The order of the District Forum can be reproduced thus:

    From whole discussion it appears that this is a fit case to be decreed. Accordingly, the case is decreed in favour of the complainant. The case is decreed for Rs. 14,83,712 for insurance money Rs. 45,000 for unnecessary harassment and Rs. 05,000 for litigation totalling Rs. 15,33,712, with an interest @ 12% (which the Bank has been taking) from 22.6.10 The filing of the present complaint. This award money shall go directly to the Allahabad Bank, Katihar in the A/c of Govind Agrawal, the Complainant and proprietor of M/s. Mobile World. The O.P. No. 1 and O.P. 2 are jointly and severally directly to deposit the decretal amount within a fortnight to avoid any further delay. The case is disposed of in this way. In case, the O.P. make any default, the Complainant has an option to take recourse in law.

    The aforesaid order of the District Forum was set aside and modified by the State Commission vide its impugned order in terms of the following directions:

    We direct the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 5,67,010.89+ Rs. 45,000 as litigation cost + Rs. 10,000 as cost for harassment. Since only voucher was sent in respect of draft on behalf the Insurance Company for acceptance by the insured, so interest would be payable @ 10% per annum from that date, i.e. 24.1.2010, which would roughly come to more than Rs. 1,40,000 (Rs. one lac forty thousand only) till date. So this amount should be added along with the aforesaid amount within sixty days from the date of passing of this order, failing which interest @ 12% per annum shall payable by the Insurance Company till payment.

  2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner insured his shop at Katihar with the respondent Insurance Company under "shop keepers insurance policy" for a sum of Rs. 3 lakh for the period from 19.2.2008 to 18.2.2009. During the period when the first policy was already in force, the petitioner/complainant took another policy for the same premises for the sum of Rs. 26,04,000 which was effective from 15.10.2008 to 14.10.2009 for covering risk of stocks in trade against fire and allied perils as also burglary and house breaking with hypothecation of the goods with respondent No. 3 Bank. In the night intervening between 16-17.10.2008, theft took place in the insured shop of the petitioner and after breaking the premises the thieves took away mobiles and laptop etc. worth Rs. 19,90,000. An F.I.R. was lodged with the local police station giving details of the articles stolen. The petitioner also informed the respondent Insurance Company and the respondent Bank about the burglary committed in his shop. Reportedly...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT