news details |
|
|
| Consumer Commission settles 12 year old claim | | Complainant awarded Rs.12.43 lakh compensation | | Early Times Reporter
Jammu | Sept 25
The Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission headed by Justice (Retd) G D Sharma and Riffat Aijaz as its members, has settled a claim of a widow after a gap of nearly 12 years and granted relief in favour of the complainant to the tune of Rs.12.43 lakhs along with interest @ 6 per cent per annum, from January 29,1996 till the payment is made .
The Commission in its judgment observed that the incident of the case has given rise to the filling of the complaint pertaining to November 29,1995 when the anti-national elements caused an IED blast on the nearby roadside of the two insured buildings of the complainant resulting into the death of one alleged informer and two pedestrians as well as injuries to some security personnel and the civilians. The blast was so powerful that cracks developed in the walls of the two insured buildings of the complainant. After the blast, the miscreants ransacked and looted the household articles lying inside. Atiqa Begum widow of late Sheikh Mohammed Sadiq, due to threat perception, had migrated from Kashmir Valley leaving the insured houses in the custody of chowkidars. The two houses had an insurance policy including to the extent of Rs.4.42 lakhs. For the loss caused to the buildings and household goods, she had put up a claim in the Commission to the extent of Rs,12.43 lakhs
The Commission after making an appraisal of the evidence led by the parties as well as rejecting the legal defence taken up by the OP to escape its liability to reimburse the insured complainant Atiqa Begum, granted her the full claim of Rs,12.43 lakhs along with the interest and the damages.
Censuring the conduct of the officials of the Insurance Company who dealt with the case, the Commission observed that such a defence is neither factually nor legally correct because in rebuttal no evidence has been led by the OP to discredit the evidence of the complainant which is consistent, independent and credulous to establish the fact that damaged buildings had been repaired and renovated before the end of April 1996.
The Commission further observed that it is not understandable how the insurer could escape from reimbursing this liability on the plea not affecting repairs in the damaged buildings adding that this part of the incident has given an independent cause of action to the complainant to get herself reimbursed. ‘In view of these circumstances we have no other option but to accept the claim of the complainant’, the Commission observed and held the officers dealing with this case responsible for not appointing a second surveyor as well as not taking any decision for the admission or repudiation of the claim in question. ‘Such a conduct is reprehensible because it has helped in the increase of liability of reimbursement and ultimately a drain to the public money of the depositors lying with the OP as a trustee’, the Commission noted and ‘hoped that such a lapse would not be repeated in future’.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
