Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 449.
Instituted on : 11.11.2013.
Decided on : 03.03.2016.
Dinesh Sukla s/o Sh. Satnarain Sukla R/o H.No.643/32, Shivaji Colony, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
Oriental Insurance Co. through its Branch/Regional Manager, Office opposite D-Park, Model Town, Rohtak.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Govind Balhara, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.D.S.Chauhan, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he insured his house no.643/32 from the opposite party under residential policy whose insured value is Rs.15lakh. It is averred that the house of complainant was damaged in earthquake on 05.03.2012 and the complainant immediately informed the opposite party regarding damages in his house. It is averred that opposite party appointed the surveyor and he provided the estimate of Rs.360000/- for reconstruction of house and the same was deposited to the surveyor. It is averred that complainant on his own expenses went to Meteorological Department and deposited Rs.1124/- by cheque in department and forwarded report to opposite party department. It is averred that on 09.04.2013 opposite party sent a letter to complainant regarding settlement of his claim only in Rs.20740/-. It is averred that as per estimate provided by Govt. Approved Valuer, complainant have damages of Rs.360000/- and the opposite party is liable to pay the full value of re-construction of his house. It is averred that the complainant sent a legal notice through his counsel to the opposite party on 07.03.2013 for considering his genuine request and to release his balance amount but to no effect. It is averred that the act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to make the payment of Rs.360000/- to the complainant alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
2. On notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that the opposite party appointed the Surveyor to assess the loss of damage of house in earthquake of the complainant who assessed the loss of house in question for Rs.20991/-. It is averred that the estimate loss submitted by the insured which is prepared by M/s Jain Architects, Rohtak for Rs.360500/- is on very higher side. So the loss assessed by Govt. approved Surveyor Sh. Sushil Kumar Sharma has been paid by the opposite party, in the loan account of the complainant in P.N.B., Model Town, Rohtak. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1/A to Ex.C1/W, affidavit Ex.CW2/A and document Ex.C2/A and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case it is not disputed that the house in question of the complainant was insured with the opposite party as per policy schedule Ex.R1. It is also not disputed that the house was affected due to earthquake which arrived on 05.03.2012. The complainant filed the claim with the opposite party for the loss suffered by him due to earthquake. Opposite party appointed the surveyor who as per his report Ex.R2 has assessed the loss amounting to Rs.20991/- and the opposite party vide its Claim Payment voucher Ex.R5 has paid the amount of Rs.20740/- in the bank account of the complainant and the same is not disputed by the complainant. The contention of the complainant is that the loss assessed by the surveyor is on very meager side and on the other hand, he appointed Sh.R.K.Jain Architects who as per his report Ex.C2/A has assessed the loss amounting to Rs.360500/- and as such the complainant has demanded the remaining amount of claim from the opposite party. On the other hand, contention of ld. Counsel for the opposite party is that the amount assessed by the surveyor has already been paid to the complainant and the loss assessed by the Architecture is on very higher side. As such nothing is payable to the complainant.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim of the complainant has been settled by the opposite party as per the report of surveyor Ex.R2. But the complainant has demanded a sum of Rs.360000/- on the basis of report of architecture placed on record by the complainant as Ex.C2/A. In this regard ld. Counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance upon the law cited in 2014 CJ 366(N.C) titled as Sunanda Kishor Bhand and another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. whereby Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has held that: “Surveyor’s report has significant evidentiary value, unless is proved otherwise-Except ipse dixit of complainant, there is no material brought on record to support its claim-Case of complainant dismissed”, as per IV(2015) CPJ 560(NC) titled as Rotex Automation Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. whereby Hon’ble National Commission New Delhi has held that: “Report given by surveyor has to be given due value-Report given by private Chartered Accountant carries exiguous value-Private Chartered Accountant appointed by party is interested witness-His report cannot be equated with report of surveyor”.
8. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the claim amount has already been paid on the basis of report of surveyor. Hence the report prepared by M/s Jain Architects, Rohtak has no evidentry value. As such the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
03.03.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
……………………………….
Ved Pal, Member.
