BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH ========== Complaint Case No : 91 of 2010 Date of Institution : 16.02.2010 Date of Decision : 16.05.2011 Tanuj Roshi Poultry Farm, Village Kakar Majra, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala, through Sh.Satinder Kumar son of Sh.Des Raj Gupta, Resident of H.No.1, Sector 12, Panchkula, General Power of Attorney of Smt. Shashi Kala Gupta, Proprietor of M/s Tanuj Roshi Poultry Farm. ….…Complainant V E R S U S 1] M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.139-140, 1st Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Manager. 2] The Manager, M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.139-140, 1st Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. ..…Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER Argued by: Sh.Arun Kumar, Advocate for the complainant. Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the OPs. PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER 1] This complaint has been filed by M/s.Tanuj Roshi Poultry Farm against the OPs under Section 12 & 13 of Consumer Protection Act. Briefly stated, the complainant had taken a comprehensive insurance policy from the OPs valid from 4.12.2008 to 3.12.2009. A premium of Rs.16,630/- had been paid. On 11.9.2009 there was heavy rain due to which the feed godown of the complainant’s premises was flooded and an immense damage was caused to the stock lying there. The complainant informed the OPs on 12.9.2009 about the damage. On receipt of information, the OPs appointed Mr.Sanjay Gupta, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, to assess the loss. The Surveyor after visiting the premises made his assessment of loss. The complainant submitted all required documents to the Surveyor as well as to the OPs for finalization of his claim. Finally after a meeting held on 5.1.2010 between the complainant and OPs, a compensation of Rs.3,07,000/- was offered to the complainant against an estimated loss of Rs.8.60 lacs. The complainant refused to accept this amount and requested the OPs to supply a copy of the Surveyor Report under R.T.I. Act. As the Surveyor report was not supplied by the OPs, the complainant even served a legal notice to the OPs for the same. Since, the complainant was not competent to understand various complicated methods to calculate the loss of dead stock, he himself hired a Surveyor i.e. M/s. Consolidated Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. also on 20.1.2010 to assess the loss. M/s. Consolidated Surveyor Pvt. Ltd. after their survey assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.5,60,569.46 (Page No.53 to 57 of the paper-book). The complainant was not even satisfied with the assessment of M/s. Consolidated Surveyor Pvt. Ltd. He has thus assessed the loss himself as per actual quantity and weight measured by Mr.Sanjay Gupta on 17.9.2009, details of which is in Para No.27 of the complaint. The relevant portion is as under:- “…loss as per actual quantity and weight measurement which was done by Mr.Sanjay Gupta in the presence of the complainant and his Munshi on 17.9.2009 is given as under: (a) | Value of damaged stock | - | Rs.8,13,200.00 | (b) | Less: Salvage Value | - | Rs.41,806.00 | (c) | Less : Dead Stock (1%) | - | Rs.7,71,394.00 Rs.7,139.40 | (d) | Less : Policy excess @ 5% | - | Rs.7,64,254.60 Rs.43,212.73 | (e) | Plus : Debris Removal 1% | - | Rs.7,21,041.87 Rs.7,210.42 | | Adjusted Loss | - | Rs.7,28,252.29 |
The complainant also sent a copy of the loss assessment report by Consolidated Surveyor Pvt. Ltd. and certified copies of stock statement by Chartered Accountant to the OP on 5.4.2010. Thereafter, he made several repeated requests to the OP to settle the matter amicably but no action was taken by them in this regard. The complainant has thus filed the instant complaint with the following prayer:- a) To pay a compensation of adjusted loss amounting to Rs.7,28,252.29. b) To pay an interest on claim from 5.1.2010 till the date of payment @12% p.a. c) To pay a fee of Rs.1500/- paid to the Consolidated Surveyor Pvt. Ltd. d) To pay the Legal Cost of Rs.25,000/-. e) To pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental torture and harassment suffered by the complainant. 2] After admission, notices were sent to the OPs. The OPs in their reply took the preliminary objection that the complainant is carrying on commercial transaction and hence is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The OPs have also admitted that the complainant had obtained Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy from them valid from 4.12.2008 to 3.12.2009. The OPs have further submitted that the Surveyor Sh.Sanjay Gupta, appointed for assessment of the loss had issued a detailed report dated 17.12.2009 and on the basis of this report, a letter dated 12.1.2010 was written to the complainant seeking his consent for release of an amount of Rs.3,07,732/- in full & final settlement of the claim. The complainant failed to give any consent and refused to accept the offer for the reasons best known to him. The OPs have further submitted that on the basis of the Surveyor’s Report, the concerned office has also taken necessary approval from the competent authority for release of the amount. The complainant was required and was thus asked to submit all necessary documents for the completion of the assessment report. Denying any harassment caused to the complainant by the OPs and submitting that the claim, if any, is only payable as per terms & conditions of the policy and keeping in view the report of the Surveyor, the Ops have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The Ops have also said that when the complainant hired the services of M/s Consolidated Surveyors, he never informed the Ops or the Surveyor of the Company. M/s Consolidated Surveyors or Mr.Mukesh Aggarwal, Chartered Accountant never gave any notice to the Company or its Surveyor before making their reports. Hence, their report cannot be taken into consideration for finalization of claim by the OPs. The OPs have thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 4] We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have perused the record besides the written arguments of the complainant. 5] The complainant after suffering a loss due to excessive rainfall at the Poultry Farm, had made a claim to the OPs against the insurance taken. The OPs after taking stock of the matter, appointed Sh.Sanjay Gupta, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, to asses the loss, who after inspecting the damage, assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.3,07,231.76. 6] Not satisfied with the assessment made by the Surveyor of OPs, the complainant appointed an independent Surveyor i.e. M/s Consolidated Surveyors, who assessed the loss to the extent of Rs.5,60,659.46. 7] As per Para 27 of the complaint, the complainant has submitted that as per actual quantity and weight measurement done by Mr.Sanjay Gupta, the loss was to the tune of Rs.7,28,252.29. 8] On perusal of the report submitted by Sh.Sanjay Gupta, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, we find that he has inspected the location of the site, checked the stock and the cause of loss and has given his report after making a complete detailed assessment. There is nothing unreasonable or arbitrary. As per the report the surveyor has taken two methods to assess the loss of the complainant. As per Method–A, the assessment has been made on the average of stock of previous three years. As per Method-B, the assessment has been done by physical verification of the actual stock with the assistance of the Manager of the Company. (Annexure R-3). 9] As per the report, the insured has claimed a sum of Rs.8,60,000/-. Sh.Sanjay Gupta, Surveyor, as per Method-A, has assessed the maximum liability of the insurance as Rs.3,79,996.56 and as per Method-B, the liability has been assessed by the insurer to the tune of Rs.3,07,231.76. 10] We may see that the assessment as per Method-A is on the average of previous stocks and assessment as per Method-B is on the basis of actual stock available. We find no reason to interfere in the report of Sh.Sanjay Gupta, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, appointed by the OPs. To our mind, the second assessment seems to be more plausible and specific. The OPs have also relied on this assessment, and have offered Rs.3,07,732/- to the complainant. The complainant has refused this amount. 11] We do not find any reason or need to interfere with the amount being offered by the OPs based on the report of Surveyor Sh.Sanjay Gupta. The Hon’ble National Commission in case New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rabindra Narayan, I(2010) CPJ 80 (NC) has held :- “….Surveyor’s report being important piece of evidence, to be given weight and relied upon, unless proved unreliable..” In an another case Dabirudin Cold Storage Vs. New India Assuance Company Ltd. & Ors., I(2010) CPJ 141 (NC), the Hon’ble National Commission has held that:- “…….Surveyor’s report being important document, cannot be easily brushed aside.” We also at the same time do not think it appropriate to even consider the report of the independent surveyor appointed by the complainant especially in the light of the law settled as aforesaid. Otherwise also the complainant is demanding far more then what has been assessed by his independent Surveyor i.e. M/s. Consolidated Surveyors. The basis of excessive demand has not been explained by him. 13] To our mind there is no deficiency in service by the OPs in offering Rs.3,07,732/- to the complainant, as assessed by the Surveyor. The complainant has failed to point out or prove any deficiency in service by the OPs. Therefore, the complaint is hereby dismissed. The complainant may accept the amount offered by the OPs, if he so desires. No order as to costs. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, the file be consigned to the record room. Announced 16.05.2011 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
