1. Brief facts are that the complainant, M/s Classic Glass & Plywood Center was in the business of glass and plywood of various kinds took a policy for a period of 18-11-2002 to 17-11-2003 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the opposite party-New India Assurance Company. During subsistence of the policy, on 20-11-2002 in the morning the fire took place in the shop. It was informed to the fire brigade and police station also. It took almost three hours to extinguish the fire, entire plywood stock of the complainant was burnt to ashes. The showroom was situated on the ground floor of the building whereas the sheets of plywood were stored in the first floor. The incident of fire was intimated to OP, who deputed a surveyor, but the claim was not settled. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before the Varanasi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, the District Forum) for alleged deficiency in service from the OP. 2. The opposite party resisted the complaint by filing the written version. The opposite party, on receipt of intimation of the fire incident deputed the surveyor to assess the extent of fire loss. The surveyor assessed the extent of loss to Rs.1,17,072/- and opined that, the said loss was not admissible because there was no loss in the shop as the policy coverage was only for the shop, but the fire was occurred in the godown located on the first floor. 3. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint and also awarded Rs.4,000/- as cost. Being aggrieved, the opposite party-insurance company filed the first appeal before the State Commission, it was dismissed vide order dated 18-03-2016. Hence, this revision petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party vehemently argued that the policy was issued in the name of the shop, whereas complainant stored the plywood sheets on the first floor in the godown, which is a separate premise. The counsel for OP further submitted that, the total stock was of Rs.11,00,000/- but complainant took undervalued insurance to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/-. Therefore, the surveyor assessed the loss on average basis. The counsel further submitted that, District Forum ignored the surveyor report and mechanically allowed the loss on the basis of fire brigade report. The fire brigade report dated 10-11-2002 revealed the estimated loss to Rs.4,96,000/-. Thus, the order passed by the District Forum was on presumption only. 5. The rival argument on behalf of complainant that the showroom and storage was not located separately. There is no evidence produced by OP to prove that it was a godown on 1st floor. The surveyor has wrongly observed it as a separate room as a godown. The first floor of the premise was the part of his shop and the policy issued by OP has not made distinction between the shop and godown. Both the lower fora have given concurrent findings against the opposite party; therefore, there is limited scope in the revisional jurisdiction. 6. After thoughtful consideration, perusal of policy and evidence on record, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had a plywood shop. In the market for customers the display of sample or material will be usually on the ground floor The different variety and sheets of plywood will be stored in bulk on the first floor. Therefore, it should not be construed as a separate premise or godown. In my view, OP also had not issued the policy with clear distinction between shop and alleged gowdown. Perused the copy of fire brigade report, it has given the estimated loss of Rs.4,96,000/-. In my view the fire brigade is not an authorized surveyor. Therefore, in the instant case estimated loss should not be mistaken as assessed loss. For the insurance claim, loss must be assessed by a qualified surveyor as per IRDA guidelines. In the instant case, opposite party-company deputed the surveyor who has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,17,072/-. It is also pertinent to note that stock verified revealed of Rs.11,00,000/- whereas the complainant took insurance policy for Rs.5,00,000/-. Thus, it is a clear that complainant insured his shop with by undervalued insurance policy. Thus the surveyor assessed the loss of Rs.1,17,072/- on average basis. 7. On the basis of foregoing discussion, both the fora have erred in appreciating the surveyor report and just relied upon fire brigade report i.e. the estimated loss suffered by the complainant. Therefore, this revision petition is partly allowed and the orders passed by the lower fora are set aside. It is directed the opposite party to pay as per surveyor’s assessment Rs.1,17,072/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint within a month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the opposite party shall be liable to pay the entire amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum till its realization. 8. The revision petition stands disposed of. |
