Haryana

StateCommission

A/643/2015

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S RICHI RICH HOTEL AND RESTAURANT - Opp.Party(s)

J.P.NAHAR

11 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                       

First Appeal No.643 of 2015

Date of Institution:31.07.2015

Date of Decision:11.05.2016

 

The New India Assurance Company Ltd., situated at near S.D.college, G.T.Road, Panipat, Tehsil and District Panipat through its Divisional/Branch Manager.

Now through its authorized signatory, Tarsem Chand, Deputy Manager, Regional Office,SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

 

     …..Appellant

                                                Versus

M/s Richi Rich Hotel & Restaurant situated at G.T.Road,Gharaunda,Distt. Karnal through its partner namely Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Parkash.

         …..Respondent

CORAM:     Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-     Mr.J.P.Nahar, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Suresh Ahlawat, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

 

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI MEMBER:

 

1. The New India Assurance company Ltd.–OP is in appeal against the Order dated 17.06.2014 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Panipat, whereby the complaint of M/s Richi Rich Hotel and Restaurant - Complainant has been allowed and OPs has been directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as lumpsum value of the generator alongwith interest @9% per annum, and Rs.20,000/- for deficiency in service with Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses.
2. Briefly stated, the complainant is a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s Richi Rich Hotels and Restaurant, situated at Gharaunda, District Karnal. The complainant firm is doing the business of all type of food catering and managements. The complainant obtained an insurance policy of complete furniture and one generator etc. vide policy No.35390011120100000078 w.e.f. 17.04.2012 to 16.04.2013 from the OP. At the time of issuing the insurance policy, the OP obtained an amount of Rs.1146/- from the complainant for insurance value of Rs.3,75,000/- for plant machinery and accessories as well insurance value of Rs.5,00,000/- for furniture, fittings, fixtures and other contents. In this manner total insurance value of insurance was Rs.8,75,000/-. On 09.04.2013 the fire took place in the insured 62.5 KVA generator, installed in the complainant’s hotel and immediately after the fire, the complainant informed the Sub Fire Officer, Gharaunda, who controlled the fire. The OP deputed the surveyor and loss assessor Mr. D.L. Arora, who visited the premises of the complainant and submitted his survey report on 04.09.2013. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of the OP several times and requested to release the claim, but the OP ultimately repudiated the claim of the complainant on 12.11.2013, on the ground that the claim of the complainant was not covered under the scope of policy. Aggrieved against this, the complainant approached the District Forum claiming Rs.4,40,000/- alongwith compensation for harassment and litigation expenses alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
3. According to the OPs, the claim of the complainant was processed and an independent surveyor was appointed to assess the loss. The assessment of the loss as mentioned in the report does not take the company liable to pay the loss, as this was against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Though according to OP, there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part yet, the learned District Forum rejected the pleas raised by the OP and accepted the complaint vide order dated 17.06.2014 by granting the aforesaid relief.  
4. Against this Order, the OP- insurance company has filed Appeal before us contending that the learned District Forum has accepted the complaint without any legal justification. The appellant reiterating his submissions as made by him before the District Forum, stressed that the OP was not liable to pay the claim at all.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. A close scrutiny of the survey report shows that the surveyor has infact found as a fact that the insured– complainant in fact suffered a loss, assessed on total loss basis as Rs.1,40,000/-.  The detailed of the assessment are as under:-

Sum assured	Rs.3,75,000/-
Less cost of other goods Fridges and DG Set	(-) Rs.75000/-
Actual sum insured of DG set Burnt	Rs.3,00,000/-
Less cost of salvage of DG set 62.5 KVA	(-)Rs.1,50,000/-
Net loss on total loss basis	Rs.1,50,000/-
Less Excess	Rs.10,000/-
Net loss accessed on total loss basis	Rs.1,40,000/-

 

6. This amount as assessed by the surveyor is a correct assessment of the loss, because the complainant had not got the generator duly serviced with proper maintenance and annual repairs, which was a major cause of the fire. This stands established  from the fact that the complainant has not produced any voucher / receipt etc. of the purchase of the generator set and its repairs and maintenance etc. In fact, the appellant in its grounds of appeal has also indirectly admitted that “as per the calculations report in the survey report,  amount payable, if any, is Rs.1,40,000/- only Though no amount is payable, but if at all any amount would have been payable it should have been as per the assessment made by the surveyor”.
7. In view of the aforesaid factual position, established on the record by documentary evidence produced by both the parties, we find that though the complaint of the complainant deserved to be allowed, but the amount awarded should not have exceeded Rs.1,40,000/- as it is this amount which has been assessed by the surveyor. Accordingly, we partly allow the appeal and modify the order of the learned District Forum by reducing the amount awarded to the complainant, from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.1,40,000/- with 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till its actual realization, Rs.20,000/-  for harassment and Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses.
8.  The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

 

May 11th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.