Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:
(1) This is an appeal filed by the original Opponent Insurance Company against the judgement and award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik in Consumer Complaint No.81/2010, whereby while allowing the complaint partly the District Forum directed Opponent Insurance Company to pay a sum of `4,25,166/- with interest @12% per annum from 27.07.2009 till actual realization of the amount and also directed to pay `1,500/- as cost.
(2) Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:
The Complainant Shri Devchandbhai Nathulal Patil, resident of Nashik, is an owner of grocery shop at Panchavati, Nahsik. He had purchased Insurance cover for his shop premises from the Opponent Insurance Company through Janlaxmi Sahakari Bank Ltd. On 19.09.2008, when the policy was in force there was heavy flood to the Godavari river and the said flood water entered in the shop premises of the Complainant and therefore, he suffered loss of `8,84,650/-. He gave intimation immediately to the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company appointed Surveyor Shri Bhatia, who made survey at the shop premises to assess the damage suffered by the Complainant. On behalf of the Government of Maharashtra, Talathi recorded panchanama who mentioned in the panchanama that Complainant suffered loss of `7,00,000/- caused due to flood water entered into the shop premises. Upon considering the survey report and other papers submitted by the Complainant along with the claim form amount of `2,74,834/- was paid to the Complainant which he accepted ‘under protest’ on 27.07.2009. According to Complainant he was entitled to get an amount of `4,87,081/- with interest from the Opponent Insurance Company. Before filing consumer complaint he had sent notice by R.P.A.D., but notice was not complied with, hence, he filed consumer complaint to claim amount of `5,53,860/- with interest @ 14% per annum. He also claimed cost of `10,000/- towards proceeding.
(3) Opponent did not file written version to contest the matter. Hence, Opponent Insurance Company was proceeded without written version.
(4) Considering affidavit and documents placed on record, the District Forum observed that the amount of `2,74,834/- paid y Insurance Company was received by the Complainant ‘under protest’ and he reserved his right to agitate the matter further. The District Forum also relied upon the fact that the Government of Maharashtra Officials had assessed loss occasioned to his shop premises worth `7,00,000/- as per review panachanama. The District Forum also went through the balance sheet produced by the Complainant. Considering all these aspects of the matter the District Forum was of the view that the Complainant had suffered loss of `7,00,000/- in the flood and without any cogent and sufficient reasons the Insurance Company had offered a sum of `2,74,834/- towards full and final settlement of the claim, but, since claim amount was received ‘under protest’ reserving his right to claim the balance amount, the District Forum was of the view that the amount of `4,25,166/- was required to be further paid by the Insurance Company towards insurance claim and therefore, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed to pay amount of `4,25,166/- with interest @12% per annum to the Complainant. Aggrieved by this order the original Opponent Insurance Company has filed this appeal.
(5) We heard submissions of Advocate Mr.Nikhil Mehta, proxy for M/s.KMC Legal, for the Appellant and Mr.S.C. Surana, Advocate for the Respondent.
(6) We are of the view that the insurance claim was not contested by the Appellant and the order passed by the District Forum is just and proper. The review panchanama prepared by Talathi clearly mentioned that Complainant suffered damages of `7,00,000/- because of rain water entered into his shop premises. The District Forum also noted that the Complainant Insurance Company had not contested the matter by filing written version and affidavit and therefore, the District Forum thought it fit to accept the Complainant’s version and rightly directed Insurance Company to pay the amount as per the award.
(7) What is pertinent to note is the fact that Opponent had not tendered any evidence on behalf of the Insurance Company. Opponent Insurance Company had not even filed affidavit of Surveyor. Opponent Insurance Company had not produced survey report on record, though, it is the case of the Opponent Insurance Company that it had paid the amount as per surveyor’s recommendations. But the amount was accepted by the Complainant/Respondent ‘under protest’ and thereby he reserved his right to agitate the matter further. Thereafter, he rightly filed consumer complaint since his case was that he suffered a loss to the extent of `7,00,000/- and he was given a very paltry amount of compensation by way of indemnification made by the Opponent Insurance Company. In the circumstances, we find that the award passed by the District Forum is appearing to be just and proper. It does not suffer from any illegality, there is no error appearing on the face of record and as such judgement and award passed by the District Forum is sustainable in law. We find no substance in the appeal preferred by the Opponent Insurance Company and hence, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal stands dismissed.
(ii) No order as to cost.
(iii) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 3rd July, 2012.
