C.C. Pant, Member, J.
1. This is insurers appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 14.11.2008 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 66 of 2007. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint against the opposite party No. 1 â insurance company and directed the insurance company to pay sum of Rs. 38,500/- to the complainant together with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment.
2. In brief the facts of the case, as stated in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant â M/s Om Prakash Vijay Kumar Jain is a proprietorship concern and is carrying on the business of sale of Cattle Field Products, Ghee, Oil, Pulses, Rice, Maida, Dry Fruits, Spices, Cosmetic etc. at Vikas Nagar. The complainant has obtained a cash credit limit from opposite party No. 2 â Punjab National Bank. The stock kept in the shop was insured with the insurance company for sum of Rs. 2,90,000/-. On 30/31.08.2005, theft took place in the shop, in which the complainant suffered loss of Rs. 42,500/-. FIR of the incident was lodged on 31.08.2005 and intimation of the incident was given to the insurance company and the bank. The insurance company appointed Piyush Associates, Surveyors and Loss Assessors. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that the stolen goods / items were not covered under the policy. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun.
3. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the basis of the surveyors report and in doing so, no deficiency in service was made by them. The bank also filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that there has not been any deficiency in service on their part.
4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint against the insurance company vide impugned order dated 14.11.2008 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed this appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The insurance company has repudiated the claim vide letter dated 03.11.2006 on the ground that the theft items were not covered under the policy. The complainant has obtained a shopkeepers insurance policy and the nature of business mentioned in the policy was âcattle feed shopâ and in the description of perils, it is mentioned âall contents in the shop premises stated at the above addressâ. The surveyor at Page No. 4 of their report have observed that the goods covered under the policy also include cattle feed products. Thus, all the goods kept in the shop were covered under the policy and it can not be said that non-cattle feed products kept in the shop were not covered under the insurance policy and hence the repudiation of the claim on the said ground can not be said to be justified. Even otherwise, the complainant has availed a cash credit limit of Rs. 2,90,000/- from the bank and the sum insured under the policy was also Rs. 2,90,000/-. The complainant has got the stock kept in the shop insured with the insurance company in pursuance of the cash credit limit availed by him from the bank. For getting the cash credit limit from the bank, the complainant was required to prepare an inventory of stock and submit the same to the bank. The said inventory includes cattle feed, kirana items and other goods and on the basis of the said inventory, the cash credit limit was granted to the complainant and the complainant was obliged to get the stock insured and accordingly the insurance company has issued a shopkeepers policy and the nature of business, as stated above, was mentioned in the policy as âcattle feed shopâ. âCattle feed shopâ is not a shop which contains only cattle feed products, but it also includes all those goods which were included in the inventory list submitted by the proposer to the bank as well as to the insurance company. Thus, the District Forum has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the goods stolen were duly covered under the policy and the insurance company has committed deficiency in service by repudiating the claim.
7. So far as the quantum is concerned, the complainant has alleged that he has suffered a loss of Rs. 42,500/-. The surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 38,500/- and has deducted 50% amount from the assessed amount. No reason has been assigned by the surveyor for the said deduction @50% amounting to Rs. 19,250/-. The District Forum has also held that there is no justification for the said deduction. The District Forum went on to award the compensation of Rs. 38,500/-, as was assessed by the surveyor. Therefore, it can not be said that the District Forum has awarded excessive compensation to the complainant. The District Forum has also awarded interest @9% p.a. In our view, the said rate of interest is on the higher side and in our considered opinion, the complainant is entitled to interest @7% p.a. Thus, the appeal succeed partly and is to be allowed accordingly.
8. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is partly allowed. Order impugned dated 14.11.2008 of the District Forum is modified and the appellant â insurance company is directed to pay sum of Rs. 38,500/- to the complainant â respondent No. 1 together with interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. No order as to costs.