Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/696/2012

M/s Maha Naraini Timbers - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

J.S.Baliyan

09 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                                Complaint No.696   of 2012.

                                                                                                Date of institution: 05.07.2012

                                                                                                Date of decision:  09.05.2017

M/s Maha Naraini Timbers, Jagadhri-Bilaspur Road, V.P.O. Jaroda, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor Sh. Mohinder Singh.          

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            …Complainant.

                                                Versus

Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Opposite Madhu Palace, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.        

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               …Respondent

BEFORE: SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG……………………………… PRESIDENT

                  SH. S.C.SHARMA…………………………………………. MEMBER

                  SMT. VEENA RANI SHOEKAND………………………… MEMBER           

 

Present: Sh. J.S. Balyan, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. Parmod Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondent.

           

ORDER    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT)

1.                        The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2                      Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant firm has got insured its factory with the respondent Insurance Company (hereinafter respondent will be referred as Op Insurance Company) vide policy bearing No. 261700/11/2012/344  valid from 29.09.2011 to 28.09.2012 under the standard fire and special perils policy amounting to Rs. 45,00,000/- on the stock of plywood, ply board, finished, semi finished, unfinished, sawn and un-sawn timber and or like the same items whilst lying stored at the premises of the factory of the complainant. Unfortunately, on 20.11.2011 in the night at about 2.30 A.M. a fire broke out in the factory premises and immediately after coming to know, the complainant informed the fire brigade and with the help of three vehicle of the fire brigade, stopped the fire within 4 hours. Due to the fire complainant firm suffered a loss of more than Rs. 5,00,000/- . A DDR bearing No.11 dated 20.11.2011 was also lodged in the P.S. City, Jagadhri to this effect. A claim was lodged with the OP Insurance Company and a surveyor and Loss Assessor Sh. Pankaj Goel, was deputed to survey the loss who estimated the loss to the tune of Rs. 4,80,000/- but wrongly assessed the same to the tune                       of Rs. 3,24,256/- whereas the complainant was suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.4,27,500/- because at that time timber planks/fatti 1500 C.Ft @ 285/- per C. Ft. were lying in the complainant’s premises. Besides this, machinery which was lying in the chamber was also burnt and become useless and thus the total loss comes to Rs. 5,00,000/-. However, on the survey report, the OP Insurance Company has made the payment of Rs. 3,06,000/- only to the complainant. Hence, there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP Insurance Company. Lastly, prayed for directing the OP Insurance Company to pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,94,000/- alongwith interest and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement besides some preliminary objections it has been admitted on merit that complainant firm has got his stock of plywood/ wood veneering factory/laminating factory insured with the OP Insurance Company for a sum of Rs. 45,00,000/- vide standard fire and special perils policy bearing No. 261700/11/2012/344 valid from 29.09.2011 to 28.09.2012. It has been further admitted that complainant informed the OP Insurance Company regarding the incident of fire occurred in the mid night between 19/20.11.2011 vide letter dated 20.11.2011. It has been further admitted that on intimation Mr. Pankaj Goel, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was deputed for assessment of loss who visited the spot and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 3,24,256/- vide his report dated 20.03.2012(Annexure R-5). However, after going through the documents, stock statement, photographs and remaining stocks, the said amount of Rs. 3,24,256/- was found on higher side by the Op Insurance Company, therefore, the loss was finally assessed by the OP Insurance Company to the tune of Rs. 3,06,200/- and this amount had already been paid to the complainant on 30.05.2012 through electronic transfer in the account of the complainant. The complainant has also issued discharge voucher dated 29.03.2012 towards full and final settlement of his claim. Further, it has also been mentioned that the complainant has admitted the rate of timber planks/ fatti was Rs. 285/- per C.Ft. at that time. Further, the photographs taken by the surveyor at the spot shows that lot of wooden planks/ fatti were lying on the spot and were not damaged in the fire though it was charred with black smoke. Therefore, the OP Insurance Company has assessed the value of the salvage at the 10% i.e. Rs. 34077/-. It has been further mentioned that the OP Insurance Company has rightly and validly assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 3,06,000/- and the same has been paid to the complainant, which was accepted by the complainant as full and final settlement. Now the complainant is estopped from challenging the said full and final settlement and lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     In support of his case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photo copy of DDR as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of receipt of municipal committee as Annexure C-2 and C-3, Photo copy of report of fire brigade office as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of unsigned surveyor report as Annexure C-5, Carbon copy of letters Annexure C-6 to C-9, Carbon copy of detail of estimate loss as Annexure C-10 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP Insurance Company tendered into evidence affidavit of sh. R.S.Kalra, DM OIC as Annexure RW/A and documents such as Photo copy of Insurance policy as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of terms and conditions as Annexure R-2, Payment voucher through electronic transfer dated 03.05.2012 as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of full and final discharge voucher as Annexure R-4, Photo copy of surveyor report dated 20.03.2012 as Annexure R-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP Insurance Company.  

6.                            We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents carefully and minutely placed on the file.

7.                     It is not disputed that the complainant firm got insured its factory vide policy bearing No. 261700/11/2012/344 valid w.e.f. 29.09.2011 to 28.09.2012 for a sum of Rs. 45,00,000/-. It is also not disputed that a fire took place on 20.11.2011 in the factory premises of the complainant which is duly evident from the copy of DDR Annexure C-1 and receipts of the Municipal Committee as well as fire brigade Annexure C-2 to C-4. It is also not disputed that on the intimation Sh. Pankaj Goel, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was deputed by the OP Insurance Company who submitted his report dated 20.03.2012 Annexure R-5 assessing the loss to the tune of Rs. 3,24,256/-. It is also not disputed that OP Insurance Company had already paid the amount of Rs. 3,06,000/- to the complainant which is duly evident from the copy of transfer voucher dated 03.05.2012 as Annexure R-3 and R-4.

8.                     The only version of the complainant is that complainant firm has suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- but the OP Insurance Company has released the amount of Rs. 3,06,200/- only which constitute the deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP Insurance Company but this plea of the complainant is not tenable as from the perusal of surveyor report, it is duly evident that an amount of Rs. 3,24,256/- was assessed by the surveyor vide his report dated 20.03.2012 Annexure R-5. No doubt the OP Insurance Company has further deducted a lump sum of Rs. 18,000/- from the amount assessed by the surveyor i.e. an amount of Rs. 3,06,200/- has been paid to the complainant instead of Rs. 3,24,256/-. We have gone through the surveyor report Annexure R-5 wherein the Op Insurance Company has deducted near about an amount of Rs. 18,000/- for 3 accounts i.e. an amount of Rs. 6250/- has been deducted on account of rate difference of the C. Fattis i.e. surveyor assessed the loss at the rate of 290/- per C.Ft. whereas the complainant himself has claimed the rate of C. Fattis as Rs. 285/- vide his letter Annexure C-10, so, the deductions by the OP Insurance Company on this account seems reasonable. Further, the OP Insurance Company has deducted some amount on account of average clause. This deduction also seems genuine as when the actual loss become less from the loss assessed by the surveyor then there will be also difference in the average clause. Lastly, the OP Insurance Company has deducted near about an amount of Rs. 12,000/- excess on account of value of salvage from the amount assessed by the surveyor i.e. surveyor assessed the loss of salvage value  near about Rs. 22,000/- whereas OP Insurance Company after taking into consideration the photographs taken by the surveyor at spot and wood planks/fatti which were lying at spot but were not damaged, deducted an amount of Rs. 34,000/- also seems to be genuine. So, we are of the considered view that the Op Insurance Company has rightly settled the claim of the complainant and paid the same.

9.                     On the other angle also, when the complainant himself except the amount assessed by the OP Insurance Company as full and final and executed the full and final discharge voucher by affixing the stamp and seal of the firm Annexure R-4, then the complainant has no right to challenge the same. It is not the case of the complainant that he accepted the amount from the OP Insurance Company under any protest as neither the protest has been mentioned on the full and final receipt Annexure R-4 nor any letter immediately written to the company after receiving the claim amount has been placed on file. As such, there is no merit in the present case of the complainant and the same view has been held in case titled as Rajan Ahirwal Versus IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, 2015 (3) CLT Page 154.

10.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 09.05.2017.

 

                                                                                          (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

                                                                                           DCDRF, YAMUNANAGAR

 

 

                              (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)         (S.C.SHARMA)

                               MEMBER                                           MEMBER