Haryana

StateCommission

A/623/2014

UIIC - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sunita - Opp.Party(s)

Satpal

02 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                                         First Appeal No.623 of 2014  

Date of Institution: 21.07.2014

                                                               Date of Decision: 02.05.2016

 

United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch at Mini Zoo road, Red Corss, Bhiwani, through its Deputy Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

                                      …..Appellant

Versus

 

Smt.Sunita W/o Shri Zile Singh, R/o Bawri Gate, Bhiwani Tehsil and Distt. Bhiwani.

…..Respondent

 

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

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:              Shri Satpal Dhamija, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

Shri Ramender Chauhan, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

It was alleged by complainant that his shop was insured with the appellant-Opposite party (O.P.) for Rs.four lacs.  On 28.08.2010 fire broke out in the shop due to which building was damaged and she suffered loss to the tune of Rs.Two lacs. She submitted all the documents but Sh.B.C.Goyal surveyor demanded Rs.50000/- to settle the claim, but, she refused to oblige him.  Legal notice was also sent, but, to no use.

2.      In reply it was alleged by the O.P. that as per report of surveyor dated 27.11.2010 she suffered loss to the tune of Rs.15359/- as mentioned therein.  Letter was also written to her to give consent to disburse the amount, but, she did not come forward.  The loss claimed by her is on higher side.  Surveyor did not raise any demand and averments raised to this effect are altogether wrong. Objections about maintainability of complaint, concealing true facts, estoppel, locus standi, accruing cause of action etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (In short “District Forum”) granted compensation as detailed below:-

“1.     To pay Rs.58,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% from   the date of filing of this complaint till its realization.

                    2.      To pay Rs.2200/- as litigation charges.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom insurance company/O.P. has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that as per report Ex.C-3 issued by Civil Engineer Sh.Rajiv Kumar Mehta, the loss was of Rs.58,000/- The learned District Forum has rightly granted the same.  The report of surveyor Ex.R-1 is without any basis and cannot relied upon.

7.      This argument is devoid of any force.  The building has not totally damaged. From the perusal of the photographs attached with the file, it is clear that the same can be repaired easily.  Sh.Rajiv Kumar Mehta has given report about the total loss and not about repairs.  So it cannot be presumed that she has suffered loss of Rs.58,000/-.

8.      Even otherwise surveyor has given the details about assessment of loss which are as under:-

“Allocation of assessment

BUILDING PARTICULARS	Amount	Loss assessed
Present value of estimate of repairs as per report of Sh.Rajiv Kumar Mehta, Civil Engineer  Less: Depreciation @ 50% as shop was constructed during the year 2006	62719/-     31360.00	31359.00
Salvage Salvage/scrap of steel/old bricks claimed Rs.4800/- but the undersigned considered on lump-sum basis Rs.		6000.00
Other loss and expenses claimed Nil hence, assessed
Summary of loss Loss of building Other loss and expenses   Less: Salvage Total Loss assessed		31359.00 Nil 31359.00 6000.00 25359.00
Amount of claim As no average clause is applicable hence amount of claim is Less” Policy Clause		25359.00 10000.00
Amount payable		15359.00”

          From the perusal of this report, it is clear that loss of the building is not to the extent of Rs.58,000/- as assessed by Sh.Rajiv Kumar Mehta.  If we avoid Rs.10,000/-, which are deducted under policy clause, the loss is to the tune of Rs.25359/-, so the complainant can be granted compensation to this extent only.  Resultantly impugned order dated 26.05.2014 is modified to the effect that complainant is entitled for Rs.25359/- alongwith interest etc. as mentioned  in the impugned order. The impugned order is modified accordingly.

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.

May 02nd, 2016          Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                              Judicial Member                                                         Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

S.K.