Before the Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand at

Dehradun

First Appeal No. of 2018

(Consumer Complaint No. 81 of 2018)

Shri Sanjay Singhania S/o Shri Rajesh Singhania R/o A-46, Near Ess Ell Honda, Rajpur Road,
Dehradun, Uttarakhand.
……………….Complainant/Appellant

Versus
1. UNITED General Insurance Company Ltd., Building no-768,Ballupur Road,
Dehradun, Uttarakhand through Regional Manager.

2. Almora Urban Co-operative Bank, Premnagar, Dehradun, Uttarakhand through

Branch Manager.

………………Opposite Parties/Respondents

Appeal U/s 15 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

LIMITATION

Impugned Judgment passed on 10.10.2017

Certified Copy applied on 10.10.2017

Certified copy received on 10.10.2017

Appeal filed on 06.11.2018

Hence this appeal is being filed within period of limitation.

Sir,

The above named appellant is filing this present appeal aggrieved by the Judgment & Order
dated 10.10.2018, passed by the Ld. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Dehradun, in
Consumer Complaint No. 81 of 2017, Sanjay Singhania Versus United General Insurance
Company&anr., whereby the complaint of the Complainant was dismissed.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

1. That the complainant is owner of shop known as Auto Moda Motors in Dehradun.

2. That for running the said shop complainant/appellant took Loan/CC Limit from the
opposite party no. 2/respondent no. 2 Bank. In regard to which the O.P. no. 2 Bank got
insured the stock of furniture, fixture & fittings, fridge and tools of the shop owned by
the complainant/appellant. Vide Policy Cover-Note no. 41746911 for a period from 26-
02-2014 to 25-02-2015 for an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/-.

3. That on 19-11-2014 at around 5:45 AM due to short circuit the said shop of the
complainant caught fired in respect to which Fire Brigade were called and then fire was
controlled after an exercise of more than two and half hours. It is pertinent to mention
that herein mentioned shop got completely damaged causing loss of more than Rs.
10,00,000/- as the result of fire.

4. That the fire as mentioned above also damaged the shop adjoining the shop of the
complainant.

5. That the complainant immediately intimated about the said loss to the company directly
as well as through the Bank. In respect of which the Opposite party no. 1/Respondent
no. 1 appointed Shri B.D. Joshi Surveyor, who reached for inspection of the shop after
one day of the fire i.e. on 20/11/2014.
 6. That the shop herein mentioned was engaged in the business of Vespa Scooty, due to
which the shop contained the heavy stock of Vespa scooty in their showroom, which
was burnt due to fire and hence caused a burnt wire smell in the shop which disturbed
the nearby area. The complainant in lieu of which cleaned the shop and started its
business transaction as the complainant suffered huge loss from due to fire and delayed
supply of the Vespa vehicles to his customers on next day when the surveyor came to
inspect the fire.

7. That the surveyor reached late to inspect the sight and asked for illegal demands to
allow the claim amount to the complainant. This incident was reported to the nearby
police station by the complainant as the surveyor was asking for the bribe.

8. That the surveyor to harass the complainant issued a false inspection report to the
insurance company on the basis of which the Insurance Company blind folded rejected
the Claim of the complaint.

9. That the complainant against the said illegal repudiation by the Respondent No. 1, filed
a Complaint before the Ld. District Forum, Nainital, i.e. Consumer Complaint No. 81 of
2018, Sanjay Singhania v. UNITED General Insurance &anr., which was dismissed by
the Ld. Forum vide its Judgment dated 10.10.2017.
The impugned Judgment has been passed by the Consumer Forum, completely ignoring the
mandatory provisions of the Act and ignoring the material on record, which are set out below:-

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

1- Because the Ld. Forum failed to consider this fact that the report of the Surveyor was not
a genuine report and was prepared by him malafidely so as to cause harm to the
complainant/Appellant as the appellant failed to abide by the illegal demands of the
surveyor.
2- Because the Ld. Forum failed to consider this fact that the malafide of the Surveyor was
apparent from this very fact that being aggrieved by the illegal demand of the Surveyor
the Complainant/Appellant on the very first day of the visit by the surveyor on the shop
was forced to lodged a report with the police authorities and the Bank against the demand
of bribe made by the Surveyor.

3- Because the Ld. Forum failed to appreciate this fact that the report of the Surveyor is not
the final and last thing as it can be prepared by the Surveyor malafidely so as to cause
illegal and unlawful harms to the insured, as being done so in the present case.

4- Because the ld. Forum erred in not considering this fact that in the present case there was
ample of evidence, which portrayed the malafide of the Surveyor, and hence under the
present circumstances the report of the Surveyor was liable to be discarded.

5- Because the Ld. Forum failed to consider this fact that from the record it was crystal clear
that the relations of the complainant/Appellant become so bitter on the very first day due
to illegal demand of the surveyor that the complainant/Appellant was forced to file
complaint against the Surveyor and the Surveyor as a counter blast filed a complaint of
the Complainant/Appellant with the bank and hence their was no circumstances under
which the Surveyor would have given an independence and unbiased report.

6- Because the Ld. Forum failed to appreciate this fact that from a bare perusal of the Report
of the Surveyor it is apparent that he had given a frivolous report as one page 1 of his
report the Surveyor states to have received the intimation of 19.11.2014 and had visited
the site the same day i.e. 19.11.2014, however on the next page he states too have visited
the site the next day i.e. 20.11.2014.

7- Because similarly the Ld. Forum failed to take notice of this fact that the Surveyor in his
report alleges to states that no incident of fire took place, whereas in the affidavit filed by
him in support of his report he alleges that no loss due to allege fire took place, hence the
two versions are self-contradicting and conflicting.
8- Because the Ld. Forum failed to consider this aspect that the in respect of the said Fire
incident the Fire Brigade was called on 19.11.2014 which took a time of more than 2 and
a half hours to control the fire and they in their report have stated that a loss of around
Rs.19,00,000/- was caused to the shop of the insured.

9- Because the Ld. Forum failed to consider this fact the report of Fore Station has more
relevance to that of the report of the surveyor, as the Fire department is a Government
entity being recognized for its impartial services.

10- Because the Ld. Forum failed to consider this fact that the said incident of Fire was also
reported in many national news papers being circulated in Dehradun City and they had
also confirmed the incident of Fire and loss to the Complainant.

11- Because the Ld. Forum failed to take notice of this fact that the shop of the insured was
filled with meat and due to fire the same got damaged and were releasing a very pungent
odor and it was necessary for the complainant to clean his shop forthwith as the same was
affecting the neighbors and as the incident of fire took place on 19.11.2014 and the
Surveyor visited on 20.11.2014, it was not at all possible for the complainant/Appellant
to keep the burnt things intact in the shop.

12- Because the Ld. Forum failed to take notice of this fact that the complainant/appellant
duly intimated the Insurance Company on time, however it was the surveyor who visited
the site after expiry of more than 24 hours of occurrence of the incident and by then it
was not possible for the complainant/appellant to sit among the burnt meat/furniture,
fixture & fittings and as also the Appellant was required to continue with his business
which was the only mode of livelihood of his and his family.

13- Because the Ld. Forum failed to take notice of this fact that the defense being raised by
the Insurance Company before them was beyond the averments of the repudiation letter
and as per law the company cannot travel beyond the Repudiation letter.
14- Because the ld. Forum failed to consider this fact that the claim of the
complainant/Appellant was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that the
policy issued was for stocks of Furniture, Fixture & Fittings, Fridge & tools, but the
complainant is running a Meat Shop & as per the said trade, the stocks related to chicken
and mutton whereas in written statement they have taken a plea to the effect that no loss
had been caused to the Complainant/Appellant.

15- Because the ld. Forum failed to apply its judicial mind to this fact that the ground of
repudiation of claim by the Insurance Company was vague and ambiguous and failed to
state any specific reason for repudiating the claim of the complainant/Appellant.

16- Because the Ld. Forum failed to consider this fact that the stock of the
Complainant/Appellant was insured by the Bank and the Bank and the Insurance
Company at the time of insuring the premises of the Complainant/Appellant were well
aware of the fact that the Complainant/Appellant will do work of selling Meat and in
pursuance thereof they issued the said policy and now at this stage they cannot withdrew
themselves from the liability of loss caused to the complainant/Appellant.

17- Because the Ld. Forum failed to consider this fact it was the bank who got the premises
of the Complainant insured and in case there stood any fault of not mentioning correct
facts then the same was of the Bank and in that case the Bank was liable to indemnify the
Complainant/Appellant.

18- Because the finding of the Ld. Forum that the Bank was not a proper party to the
complaint are wrong, erroneous and without application of judicial mind as it was the
Bank who got the premises of the Complainant insured form the Insurance Company.

19- Because the Ld. Forum failed to consider this fact that the Respondent No. 1 & 2 in
collusion and connivance with the surveyor had acted malafidely so as to cause harm to
the complainant and derive unlawful gains.
20- Because the impugned Judgment passed by the Ld. Forum is against facts, evidence and
law.

21- Because the Ld. Forum failed to consider this fact that the claim of the Complainant was
genuine.

22- Because the Ld. Forum failed to consider this fact that the Complainant had promptly
taken all the action and had duly informed the Fire Authorities, Bank and officials of
Insurance Company about the said Fire incident.

23- Because the Ld. Forum failed to consider this fact that the claim of the Complainant was
a genuine claim and the report of Fire Station & newspapers verified the same.

24- Because the Ld. Forum failed to consider this fact that in the entire investigation no
allegation has been made out that the said claim of the complainant is not genuine.

25- Because the Ld. Forum erred in not considering this fact that the Insurance Company has
repudiated the lawful claim of the complainant on baseless, false & frivolous ground so
as to get unlawful gains after receiving a hefty amount as premium.

26- Because the Ld. Forum failed to consider this fact that the Insurance Company from
beginning was malafide in repudiating the claim of the complainant on baseless grounds
as they have also repudiated the claim of the complainant by providing the false report
against the complainant.

27- Because the provisions of the law by the Ld. Forum have been misinterpreted and
overlooked and has not been correctly appreciated.
 28- Because the Ld. Forum erred in not considering this fact that the Insurance Company has
not come with clean hands.

29- Because the findings of the Learned Forum are hypothetical, without any basis and
against pleading, and evidence on record.

30- Because the Learned District Forum has acted on the basis of conjectures & surmises.

31- Because the learned Forum failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under law.

32- Because the impugned order is against the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

33- Because The Ld. Forum has erred in dismissing the complaint of the Complainant on the
false grounds without considering the documents produced by the complainant.

34- Because the complaint of the Complainant was liable to be allowed for all reliefs
claimed.

35- Because the impugned Judgment is even otherwise bad, illegal and is liable to be set
aside and complaint of the Complainant/Appellant was liable to be allowed.

It is therefore most humbly prayed: -

1. That the impugned Judgment/order dated 10.10.2017 be set aside and the complaint of the
complainant/Appellant is liable to be allowed for all reliefs claimed.

2. That full cost of the appeal be awarded to the appellant.

3. That any other order as the Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper be also passed in
favor of the Opposite Party/Appellant.

Dated:06.11.2017 Counsel for Appellant

Dehradun.
Presented by

(Pratyush Gaurav, Advocate)

Counsel for the Complainant/Appellant

Before the Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand at

Dehradun

First Appeal No. of 2017

Sanjay Singhania
Versus
UNITED General Insurance &anr.

I/WeSanjay Singhania S/o Shri Rajesh Singhania R/o A-46, Near Ess Ell Honda, Rajpur
Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, the undersigned do hereby nominate and appoint Shri Mudit
Shukla, Pratyush Gaurav, Kumar Anubhav, Vipul Tiwari Advocates to be counsel in the
above matter for me/us and on my/our behalf to appear, plead, act and answer in the above Court
or my appellate court or any Court to which the business is transferred in the above matter, and
file petitions, statements, accounts, exhibits, compromises or other documents whatsoever, in
connection with the said matter arising there from, and also to apply for and receive all
documents or copies of documents, depositions, etc. and to apply for issue of summons and other
writs or subpoena and to apply for and get issued of any, attachment or other execution warrant
or order and to conduct any proceeding that may arise there out and to apply for an receive
payment or all sum or submit the above matter to arbitration.

Provided, however that if any part of the Advocate’s fee remains unpaid before the first hearing
of the case or if any hearing of the case be fixed beyond the limits of the town then in such an
event my/our said Advocate shall not be bound to appear before the Court and if my/our said
Advocate does appear in the said case he shall be entitled to an question fee and other expenses
of traveling, lodging etc. Provided Also that if the case be dismissed by default, or if it be
proceeded ex-parte, the said Advocate(s) shall be held responsible for the same. And all
whatever my/our said Advocate(s) shall lawfully do, I do here by agree to and shall in future
ratify and confirm.
ACCEPTED:

Mudit Shukla, Advocate

Pratyush Gaurav, Advocate

Kumar Anubhav, Advocate

Vipul Tiwari, Advocate. Signature of Client

Dated: 26.10.2018

(Pratyush Gaurav, Advocate)

Counsel for the Complainant/Appellant
Mob: 9506651240
pratyushgaurav044@gmail.com@gmail.com