NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIAPPEAL NO. 7 OF 2005
(Against the Order dated 31/12/2004 in Complaint No. 36/2003 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)
1. MOHAN LAL JAINDARRI ROAD KORBA C.G.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.ALI ROAD NEW DELHI NEW DELHI
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :
NEMO
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 13 Jul 2010
ORDER
Not fully contended with the order dated 31.12.2004 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur ( in short, the State Commission) in complaint No. 36 of 2003, the original complainant has filed the present appeal seeking upgradation of the relief and enhancement of the compensation so awarded by the State Commission. The facts and circumstances, which led to the filing of the appeal, are in a narrow compass and may be noticed thus: The appellant had taken two insurance policies, one titled as Shop Keepers Policy and another Fire Policy A in the sum of Rs. 10 lakh. During the currency of the said policies, there was fire in the shop of the appellant in the intervening night between 6.4.2000 and 7.4.2000 and some parts of the building and stocks of various commodities lying there were extensively damaged for which the complainant lodged a claim of Rs.8,86,500/- with the insurance company. A Surveyor was appointed, who after taking into consideration of the relevant factors, had assessed net loss at Rs.2,92,500/- under Shop Keepers Insurance Policy and Rs.1,03,578/- under Fire Policy A. Largely going by the said Surveyors report, the State Commission has allowed the claim to the above extent and has directed the insurance company to pay the amount with interest @9% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. 8.1.2002 with the stipulation that if the amount is not deposited within two months from the date of this order, the rate of interest shall be enhanced to 12% per annum. Rs.5000/- was also awarded to the complainant as cost of the proceedings. We have heard Mr. R. K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. S. Rana, learned counsel for the respondents and have given our thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions. The main plank of arguments of Mr. Bhawnani in order to assail the impugned order is the report of the Surveyor, namely, Manmall Kasliwal & Sons, who visited the spot in order to make survey and assessed the loss. Mr. Bhawnani contends that though the Surveyor had assessed the value of the damaged stock at Rs.5,85,000/- after deducting a sum of Rs.18,200/- towards the value of the salvage but the Surveyor has wrongly slashed the said amount to half on account of under insurance. According to him, the complainant had taken insurance policy for the stocks, which he was holding in his shop and therefore, no deduction could have been made by the Surveyor on account of under insurance. We see no merit in this contention because the Surveyor has done a thorough job by taking into account the stock position as in the preceding months viz. December, 1999, January, 2000, February, 2000, and March, 2000. Admittedly, the complainant was holding stocks of around Rs.17 lakh in the relevant preceding months but as on the date of peril, he found that the complainant was holding stocks of over Rs. 27 lakh as against the insurance coverage of Rs. 10 lakh only. Despite that and taking into consideration all the relevant facts and the stock position in the preceding months, the Surveyor took the average value of stocks at Rs. 20 lakh and deducted 50% on account of under insurance. In our view, the assessment made by the Surveyor was eminently justified and based on the adequacy of insurance value. We do not see any fault in the same. No other ground is pressed. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Shri Bhawnani states that the appellant has already received the amount deposited by the insurance company pursuant to the direction given by the State Commission. No order as to costs in these proceedings.
......................JR.C. JAINPRESIDING MEMBER ......................ANUPAM DASGUPTAMEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
