Haryana

StateCommission

A/707/2014

United India Insurance Company Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sh.Rajinder Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

19 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                                         First Appeal No.707 of 2014  

Date of Institution: 01/11.08.2014

                                                               Date of Decision: 19.01.2016

 

United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Fatehabad, through its duly constituted Attorney at Regional Office,SCO No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

Sh.Rajinder Kumar S/o Sh.Ramanand, R/o village Kanwarpura,Tehsil & District Fatehabad, Haryana.

                                      …..Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:              Shri P.S.Bedi, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

Shri R.K.Narang, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Complainant alleged that he obtained LPG dealer’s package policy from opposite party (O.P.) valid from 21.05.2011 to 20.05.2012. During the night of 17.03.2012 fire erupted in his premises and one fan, 80 Gas Chullas (stoves), 50 regulators, one computer C.P.U., bed, two chairs and important documents etc. were burnt.  The shop was also damaged.  After information Mr. Naresh Kumar Bansal, surveyor, visited the premises and prepared loss report. Lateron he came to know that surveyor did not submit correct report about the loss.  He submitted relevant bills pertaining to Gas stoves, Regulators, furniture and electronics goods etc. total amounting to Rs.1,58,471/-, but, the O.P. did not pay single penny. Later on he came to know that loss assessed by O.P. was Rs.2762/-. 

2.      O.P. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that as per report of surveyor dated 26.06.2012 complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs.2762/-.  The said report was prepared as per record submitted by the complainant. His claim was settled as per report of surveyor.  Objections about locus standi, estopple, etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide order dated 04.07.2014 and ordered as under:-

“The present complaint stands allowed and OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.80512+Rs.10750+17000+2320+11050/- total amount to Rs.1,21,632/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint till actual payment. The OP is further directed to pay Rs.3000/- on account of cost of litigation and mental harassment etc.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, opposite party has preferred this appeal on the ground that the learned District Forum did not discuss the surveyor report which was not challenged by the complainant.  As per agreement in case of dispute the matter was to be settled by arbitrator.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant-O.P. vehemently argued that  as per surveyor report Ex. R-4 the stock was to the tune of Rs.13,87,161.88 as per account books, whereas stock was insured for Rs.1,50,000/- so average clause was applied.  After taking into consideration all the aspects surveyor assessed loss to the tune of Rs.2762/-which is as under:-

“ Particulars	Loss Amount (Rs.)
STOCKS To cost of 68 Neoflames gas stoves @ Rs.1480/- per piece (Incl. Vat.) badly burnt in the fire	100640.00
Less: Salvage @ 25%	20128.00	80512.00
To cost of 20 touch Gas stoves @ Rs.1075/- per piece (incl. vat) partly burnt in fire	21500.00
Less : Salvage @ 50%	10750.00	10750.00
To cost of 68 regulars @ Rs.250 per regulator badly burnt in fire		17000.00
Less: For under-insurance @ 89.19% as discussed above	(A)	108262.00 96559.00 11703.00
FURNITURE (FFF)
To cost of two steel chairs @ Rs.700/- per chair badly burnt in fire	1400.00
To cost of four steel racks @ Rs.1550/- per rack badly burnt in fire	6200.00 7600.00
Less: Depreciation @ 30%	2280.00 5320.00
Less: Salvage value	3000.00 2320.00
Less: For under-insurance @ 66.67% as discussed above	1547.00	773.00
	(B)	773.00
BUILDING
To cost of one wooden door and two windows	11000.00
To cost of electric fittings	1500.00 12500.00
Less: Depreciation @ 30%	3750.00 8750.00
Less: Salvage value	1200.00 7550.00
Add: Labour for repairing window iron grills, electricity and painting	3500.00 11050.00
Less: for under-insurance @ 92.50% as discussed above	10221.00	829.00
	©	829.00
Loss to stocks, furniture & building assessed (A+B+C), subject, however, to policy clauses if any		13305.00”

 

          The parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Surveyor’s report is always on higher pedestal and cannot be ignored without any reasonable ground. 

7.      However there is no dispute that the report of surveyor should not be brushed aside lightly but if the same is not corroborated by any document and is based just on the basis of surmises and conjectures, the same cannot be relied upon.  In column of stocks of report Ex.R-4 it is mentioned that the value of the stock was assessed on the basis of account books dated 17.03.2012.  As per that record, the stock was to the tune of Rs.13,87,161.88.  Keeping in view that value the average clause was applied.  Salvage was also applied to the extent of 50% and the loss was assessed to the tune of Rs.2762/-.  How the value of the salvage of burnt article can be equal to 50%.  Same is the situation about Gas Stoves, where the salvage is assessed at the rate of 25%.  It is mentioned in the particular column that the article were partly damaged. This report shows that the surveyor was trying to find out one method or the other how to reduce the compensation.  It is no where mentioned by the surveyor that loss was exaggerated. As per the report it is clear that Gas Stoves, regulator etc. were burnt as alleged by the complainant. So the company is liable to pay the amount of the articles gutted in the fire and can take the salvage.  Learned District Forum rightly came to the conclusion that complainant was entitled for Rs.1,21,632/- for the loss of article besides compensation qua litigation, mental harassment etc.  However the only thing which should be added in the impugned order dated 04.07.2014  is that the appellant OP-Insurance company will be entitled to take the salvage.  The impugned order is modified accordingly and the appeal is disposed of.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and verification.

January 19th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.