Judgement

This appeal is preferred against the judgement and order dated 27/06/2018 delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Dakshin Dinajpur in connection with CC no. 70/2017. The brief fact of the case is that one Ananda Karmakar the respondent no. 1 of this case purchased a standard fire and special perils insurance policy from the appellant company for the risk covering period between 29/03/2016 and 28/03/2017 for risk coverage of the materials of hardware shop and stock. The said stock room was got in fire on 16/11/2016 and a GDE was lodged at Gangarampore P.S. and the West Bengal Fire Service Department also who at the instance of the insured inspected the spot and assessed the loss amounting to Rs. 5,98,000/- and the cause of fire was the result of short circuit. The matter was intimated to the insurance company. The insurance company appointed one Mr. Kabi Das for assessment of the loss who was the IRDA license holder. Said surveyor visited the spot and collected the evidence and submitted the report on 18/02/2017. The respondent/complainant by this time submitted a claim before the appellant authority by detailing the estimated loss amounting to Rs. 13,40,000/- but arbitrarily the appellant/OP sanctioned the amount only Rs. 1,15,881/-. The respondent/complainant refused to accept the said meagre amount and raised objection by a letter to the appellant authority. The complainant/respondent case is that as the risk sum assured for risk coverage was 5 lack and his estimated loss for damage in the fire was Rs. 13,40,000/-. So, he is well entitled to get total sum assured Rs. 5 lack and he is entitled to get the entire assured sum of the insurance including interest. The appellant has contested the complainant case by filing WV and their main contention was that the complainant/respondent purchased the fire and the special perils policy for one year by paying one time premium of Rs. 999/- and sum assured was 5 lacks means that the insurance company was liable to pay for the risk of stocks not exceeding Rs. 5,00,000/- in valuation. But the surveyor at the time of assessment found that prior to the incident the valuation of the stock was Rs. 11,52,000/- and after deduction of monetary value of salvage stock, the 40 per cent loss of the total stocks was assessed. And the value of the damaged stock assessed was Rs. 4,14,720/- and as the risk coverage was only for stocks worth Rs. 5,00,000/-. The insurance coverage comes down to 43.40 per cent to the stocks sum assured value worth Rs. 5,00,000/- and for that reason, the insured is entitled only Rs. 1,15,992/- after all legitimate deductions.

            After hearing both sides Ld. Forum has passed the impugned order and directed the appellant company to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as insured value for the damage goods, compensation Rs. 40,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs. 6,000/-. Being aggrieved with the said order this appeal follows on the ground that Ld. Forum could not consider that the liability of the insurance company was subject to due fulfilment of terms and conditions and only for the damage to the stock covered by the policy and the assessment of the damage on the part of the Forum was arbitrary, irregular and unjustified one. And the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

            The appeal is contested by the respondent. Both parties of this case in the appeal submitted their written note of arguments. Oral arguments of the both sides through the Ld. Advocates are being heard.

D E C I S I O N S   W I T H   R E A S O N S

            Admitted position is that the respondent purchased the SFSP insurance policy from the appellant company where risk coverage was Rs. 5,00,000/- for the period between 29/03/2016 and 28/03/2017 by making payment a single time premium of Rs. 999/- excluding service charge and other charges. It is also established that at the time of assessment by the IRDA license holder, value of the stock found just prior to the incident was Rs. 1,52,000/- where the value of the permitted stock was Rs. 5,00,000/-. The complainant/respondent raised claim before the insurance company that total damage he suffered in the alleged fire as per their consumer complaint Rs. 13,40,000/- where the insurance coverage for the stock was Rs. 5,00,000/-.  It is reflected that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy (Annexure 5 of this appeal case) that the stocks sum insured was Rs. 5,00,000/- whereas at the time of incident total stock was found not less than Rs. 11,52,000/- where the policy certificate clearly postulates a column “stock sum assured Rs. 5,00,000/-.”

            Ld. Advocate of the appellant at the time of argument referred judicial decisions reported in 2017(3) CPR 422 (NC) he submits that the fire brigade certificate about the assumption of loss should not be the criteria at the time of actual assessment of loss as because fire brigade authority had no authorization in this count. Ld. Advocates further made an argument that lost causes due to fire and assessment report made by surveyor to discharge his professional duty should be accepted as he has prepared his report on methodical assessment done in a professional manner. In support of his argument, he referred judicial decision reported 2017(4) CPR 502 (NC). Ld. Advocate of the respondent countered this argument of appellant by mentioning that the insurance company at the time of issuing certificate did not provide the insurance details in the attachment annexure and right now they cannot claim that insurance company had no liability to cover the damage exceeding the stock sum insured worth Rs. 5,00,000. In support of his argument he referred a judicial decision of National Commission, New Delhi in revision petition no. 342 of 2013 where it was decided that surveyor report cannot treat as one and only last word and a gospel truth.

After hearing the valuable arguments canvassed by the Ld. Counsels on behalf of their clients this Commission finds that the total loss for damage of the stocks due to fire incident was estimated 40 per cent. The stock coverage of the alleged insurance worth Rs. 5,00,000/- and out of 5 lack stock coverage the insurance company is liable to make payment of compensation at the rate of 40 per cent. And if it is estimated in this ratio the liability of the insurance company confines to Rs. 2,00,000 and not to the agreed amount of the insurance company Rs. 1,15,881/-. On the other hand, the Ld. Forum had committed a mistake awarding Rs. 5,00,000 that is total sum insured in this instant policy which is not acceptable in accordance to the terms and conditions of the policy. And as such the order of the Ld. Forum should be modified and the insurance company should be asked to pay two lakh rupees for the incident policy instead of five lakh rupees. A compensation of Rs. 40,000/- as awarded by the Ld. Forum is also excessive one as because the insurance company was not reluctant to pay the assessed money to the estimated loss assessed by the IRDA assessors. On the other hand, had the insurance company agreed to pay Rs. 2,00,000 as 40 per cent of the sum assured the respondent had to think twice before coming to the forum for his grievances and for that reason, he is entitled to get some amount of compensation and that amount should not be more than Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs. 40,000. He had to engage professional man to look into the case and for that reason he had to incurred some legal expenses. So, the litigation cost Rs. 6,000/- awarded by the Ld. Forum not found to be excessive one. The insurance company that is the appellant authority agreed to make payment Rs. 1,15,881/- by offer letter dated 27/03/2017 and the incident took place 16/11/2016 and as such interest to be accrued upon the loss amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- at least at the rate of 8 per cent per annum since 16/11/2016 to be imposed till the making of payment of the same to the complainant/respondent.

            Thus, all the issues related to this appeal are hereby considered and disposed of.

Hence it is ordered: -

          That the appeal be and the same is hereby allowed on contest with cost in part. The order of Ld. Forum, Dakshin Dinajpur dated 27/06/2018 in CC no. 70 of 2017 is hereby modified to the effect that the direction to the appellant to pay Rs. 5,00,000 within 30 days to be read as Rs. 2,00,000 instead of Rs. 5,00,000/- including interest at the rate of 8 per cent p.a within 30 days from the date of receiving the order copy of appeal. The compensation amount of Rs. 40,000/- to be read as now Rs. 10,000/- and litigation cost will be the same Rs. 6,000/- to be paid by the appellant to the respondent no.1 within 30 days from the date of this order.

            The order of the Ld. Forum that the complainant was directed to deposit Rs. 10,000/- to the SCWF of WB is hereby rescinded.

            Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and a copy to be sent to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Dakshin Dinajpur for taking necessary actions.