NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIFIRST APPEAL NO. 339 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 30/07/2009 in Complaint No. 10/2008 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)
1. M/S. SAMTA SAREE PALACE
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Gill Complex, Opposite Gurudawara, Station RoadDurgChhatisgarh2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Ist Floor, Akash Ganga, SupeiaBhilaiChhatisgarh3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.Through Chief Regional Manager, Mangalam Arcade, 179-B, Dharampeth Extension, North Bazar RoadNagpurM.S. - 440 0104. M/S. ASHOK & COMPANYThrough Sh. Ashok Motiani, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, 103/B, Lokmat Bhawan, Ist FloorNagpurM.S. - 440 012
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
For the Appellant :
NEMO
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 27 Jan 2010
ORDER
JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) Both these appeals arise from a common order dated 30.07.09 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (in short, the State Commission) in complaint case no. 10/08. By the impugned order, the State Commission has ..2.. partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant with a direction to the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.17,71,900/- to the complainant as compensation for loss of stock and damage to furniture, fittings, fixtures and also for damage to building in the incident of fire, along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 18.12.07, i.e, after two months from the date of filing of claim before the insurance company. The State Commission has also awarded cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said order, both sides, i.e, original complainant and the insurance company have filed the present appeals. Complainant has filed First Appeal no. 339/09 for upgradiation of the relief and enhancement of the compensation so awarded by the State Commission while the insurance company has filed First Appeal No. 482/09 for setting aside the impugned order. 2. We have heard Mrs. Deepa Chacko, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/appellant, M/s. Samta Saree Palace and Mr. Maibam N. Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent insurance company and have given our thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions. ..3.. 3. The consumer dispute in this case related to non-settlement of an insurance claim lodged by the insured with the insurance company seeking indemnification of the loss sustained to the stock of insured sarees, furniture, fittings, fixtures and building. On filing of the claim, a surveyor was appointed by the insurance company who quantified the loss to the tune of Rs.9,67,000/- at which the insurance company offered to settle the claim which was not acceptable to the complainant as according to the complainant the loss sustained by it was much higher. A complaint was filed claiming compensation of Rs.90 lakh which was resisted by the insurance company on the ground that the amount offered by it, being based on surveyors report was justifed. The State Commission, going by the respective pleas and the material placed on record, more particularly going by the joint inspection report dated 23.11.07 recorded in the presence of the surveyor, came to the conclusion that the number of damaged sarees was 1800 as against 900 (reported to the Surveyor) by observing as under :- 17. So far as the second question is concerned, in view of the finding of question No. (i), it is clear that the amount which was offered by the insurance company was not just and proper. The complainant was claiming loss of 300 valuable sarees in the incident of fire. Surveyor as well as investigator in his joint inspection report, prepared in presence of the complainant, found that total number of sarees ..4.. was 1800 and their average cost was also determined. These all facts might have been communicated to the insurance company including joint inspect report, but even then the insurance company prepared to offer damages, on the basis of loss of 900 sarees only which was not appropriate. So we find that the insurance company has committed deficiency in service in offering a meager amount, as loss to the stock by incident of fire, to the complainant. Thus, we decide this question against the insurance company and hold that appropriate amount of compensation of Rs.17,71,900/- . 4. Mrs. Chacko, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that the State Commission has done well in recording the above finding in regard to the number of sarees which were damaged in fire but it has wrongly quantified the loss towards the damage to the sarees by taking an average value of Rs.900/- per saree as suggested by the Surveyor. In this connection, it is pointed out that going by the said joint inspection report and record of proceedings, the average value of sarees would come to Rs.2200/- per saree. On the other hand, Mr. Maibam N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent insurance company submits that the State Commission was justified in accepting the average value of sarees @ Rs.900/- per saree as suggested by the Surveyor. In this regard, we may simply observe that the ..5.. Surveyor was deputed to assess the loss on account of fire, more particularly pertaining to sarees but it has failed to accomplish the task in the manner as was expected of an independent surveyor. The very basis of taking an average valuation of sarees in different categories itself was unfounded, more particularly so when the Surveyor could have pin-pointed the value of each damaged saree either with reference to the price tag or other documentary evidence like stock register, purchase voucher, etc. However, going by the extent and nature of the damage to the stock of sarees, we are of the opinion that the State Commission was justified in accepting the valuation of Rs.900/- per saree as an average value as suggested by the Surveyor. Another reason why we are not inclined to accept the claim at an average price of Rs.2200/- per saree is that it is a matter of common knowledge that in a saree shop the high valuation sarees would certainly be far less in number than the saress of lower price. We are, therefore, inclined to uphold the order passed by the State Commission as we do not see any infirmity therein. There is no justification to enhance the compensation. 5. As regards the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is concerned, it appears to us that it is nothing but an afterthought ..6.. device to scuttle the appeal filed by the complainant because the appeal has been filed after a delay of 115 days and it must have been filed after receiving the notice in appeal filed by the complainant. No satisfactory reason is given in the application for condonation of delay to condone this undue delay. Even otherwise, as noticed above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission. Both the appeals are dismissed accordingly. The insurance company is called upon to pay the entire awarded amount along with interest within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, failing which the rate of interest shall stand enhanced to 12% p.a.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
