MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT…         The facts as per complaint is that, the complainant for the livelihood has opened a sweet & snacks center at Old bustand, Umerkote of Nabarangpur district in the name & style of Sukha Mistan Bhandar since 2006. On dt.22.1.2008 to improve his business, he has got an advance from SBI, Umerkote Branch as working capital loan of Rs.3,00,000/- in shape of cash credit. As thus he had a current stock of Rs.5,00,000/- throughout the year. On dt.27.10.13, the OP.4 has arranged insurance cover for the sweet shoip for Rs.5,00,000 with the OP.1, 2 & 3 vide policy No.000000001329466 commencing from dt. 24.10.13 to 23.10.14, that on dt. 13.6.14 the sweet shop, owing to short circuit caught fire in the early hours at about 3.30. a.m. to 5.30.a.m, which was controlled by the fire brigade of Nabarangpur. By then, all the stocks worth fire lake including the furniture's were burnt to ashes by fire. That the incidence was reported with B.M./ C.M., SBI, Nabarangpur, the corporate against of OP.2 & 3, policy station, Nabarangpur and to OP.1,2 & 3 through their toll free number 18001021111 and the same was recorded in their file as claim No.26063 on dt.13.6.14. But against the loss of more than Rs.5,00,000/-, the OP insurer is willing to pay only Rs.94,862/- which not only unfair, but arbitrary for which, the complainant since years have been suffering from great financial crises, mental agony etc and as thus he prays to allow the complainant against OP.1 to 3 with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.5,000/-, as cost of litigation.

            The complainant has filed the insurance policy loan sanction letter of OP.4, fire accident letter dt.13.6.14, certificate from policy station & fire station, SBI account statement, lr of OP.3 dt.6.10.15.

2.         On dt.17.2.16, the counsel filed counter for OP.1 to 3 contending that the complainant was misleading and facts are suppressed. The policy was issued in the name of SBI, Umerkote Branch A/c of M/s Kamal Haldar dealing with retail sale of Bakery, sweet items under coverage of sum insured of Rs.5,00,000/- against RSMD Fire, and for all complaints the OP.1 only can be held answerable and OP.2 and 3 as did not have any role in this case, the OP.2 & 3 should be deleted from cause title. That on report of fire, the OP.1 on dt.16.6.14 deputed one surveyor & loss assessor and valuer, Bipin Bihari Patro of Jeypore for investigation & survey. That on dt.17.6.14, the surveyor, surveyed the matter and reported to OP.1, contending that, the complainant no maintained any stock register of the said shop and also insured could not produce relevant documents and materials to draw on asse3ssment of loss, and overall gross loss assessed to be Rs.1,50,000/- and after less 30% for lack of proof of documents (recommended for non standard) Rs.45,000/- and less policy excess of Rs.10,000/- which comes to Rs.95,000/- as net liability and submitted the report on 12.1.15. After receiving the report the OP.2 scrutinized the documents and found that Rs.94,862/- is only entitled by complainant and a discharge voucher with note that, the DV be signed and retained to them by 4.9.15, or they would presume that, the complainant is not keep to pursue the claim is sent to complainant, which is not yet replied.

3.         It is further submitted that, the complainant claim which includes of P & M items, FFF & stock is not covered by policy, and for that as per the surveyor, statement showing by complainant in total of Rs.3,03,722/- and an verification of bank debit & credit figures for the said month was only Rs.50,000/- each, and for consideration of size of shop, volume of material handled, daily turnover in the particular locality, size/ composition of debris, it was assessed by the surveyor that per day stock holding of the shop could be aroused Rs.1,50,000/- and on the basis of the report, after standard deductions, has reached to the amount of Rs.95,000/- as claim amount , which is no way deficiency in service hence prayed for dismissed of the plaint.

4.         The OP.s along with counter, submitted copy of policy, stock statement dt.30.3.14 & 30.5.14 made by Kamal Haldar, lr dt.13.6.14 made to OP.4 by complainant, lr dt.13.6.14 of surveyor to complainant for submission of documents for settlement of claim & lr dt.14.10.14 of OP.s to complainant asking for required documents & survey report dt.12.1.15. Considered.

5.         The counsel for complainant resisted the counter. He stated the counter is not supported by any affidavit, so also, the signatory has not revealed his name designation, address etc in it. There is no authorization letter passed by board of the corporation to represent himself on behalf of the OP Company, and a person unidentified without name or designation cannot file counter on behalf of that company, hence he prayed for dismissal of the counter. He further questioned the reliability of surveyor's report, who visited the spot on 17.6.14, but without preparing report on spot, with ca copy of report provided to the insured, on 16.12.14 asking for documents, almost after six months then. The surveyor submitted a report on 12.1.15, after 209 days is also suspectible to consider it's genuineness. He added that the surveyor report is fabricated and baseless without any reasonableness.

6.         Primarily the insured/complainant is carrying on business of retail sale of sweets, packaged snacks & biscuits, bakery items, chocolates etc, for his livelihood in the bustand of Umerkote a busy area Umerkote is a commercial centre of Nabarangpur district. He has got arrangement of cash credit of Rs.3,00,000/- hypothecating his stocks in the business premises, from the OP.4, who is also the corporate agent of OP.s. Hence, the stock was insured against fire peril by the OP.4 who had got insurance interests covering the stock for Rs.5,00,000/-.

7.         The fact is admitted that, total stock was gutted by fire occurred on dt. 13.6.14. There are debris all around, and the same is reported to all the OP.s including the police & fire authorities concerned, who has certified the occurrence.

8.         Surveyor & loss assessor, appointed by OP.s surveyed the site of accident on 17.6.14, and assessed the loss to be Rs.1,50,000/- and after deduction of non standard claim and policy excess, asserted for a net payable amount of Rs.95,000/-. The stock statement valued to Rs.5,77,296/- provided by the insured to the surveyor was dismissed by the surveyor for consideration.

9.         The surveyor, finalizing his assessment with note, under head basis of assessment……..    considering factors like size of the shop, volume of materials handled, approx daily turnover in the particular locality size/composition of debris as seen etc. we are of a firm view that per day stock holding of the shop could be in and around Rs.1,50,000/-xxxxxxx.

10.       As per fire insurance regulations, before acceptance of any fire insurance proposal the insurer is required to have his men to inspect the merchandise for valuation. But in the instant case there is no such record of inspection.

11.       Secondly, the surveyor expressed doubt in his report, the proportionate size of the premises compared to the stock statement submitted by complainant to surveyor, but did not quote what is the size of the premises.

12.       Thirdly, volume of debris, as the basis of stock assessment made after four days of occurrence, cannot be made safely. The stocks mostly composed of only snacks in polythene or paper packs, and in fire, it is common that, only ashes could have been left, and with the water sprayed by water cannon, by fire men, could have made washed away the debris substantially, wiping proof of stocks gutted. As per regulation 13(3) of IRDA, the surveyor should have prepared his stock/loss assessment on the spot and a copy should have been submitted to the insured. The detailed assessment should have been prepared within 30 days of his appointment, but here in case the surveyor took almost 209 days for his final assessment, asking the insured, after six months for documents, all attracts a suspicious vision to his report/assessment.

13.       In this regard, we place our reliance on the judgment of honble Supreme Court of India in New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Pradip Kumar, where in held that, "surveyor's report is not the last and final word".

14.       However, in absence of any evidences of stocks supplied by the complainant to us, we depend on the prudence of the OP.4, who has disbursed Rs.3,00,000/- in shape of cash credit to complainant, hypothecating the stock, to made us resume more righteously than the surveyed report that, the complainant had a stock of Rs.3,00,000/- at hold, that were gutted by fire.

15.       Without any evidence, or proper documents as to stocks, we would only direct the OP.s to settle the claim of Rs.3,00,000/- on non standard basis, i.e. 75% of the claim amount.

                                                                        ORDER

i.          The OP.s are hereby directed to pay Rs.2,25,000/-(Rupees Two lakh & twenty five thousand) as claim settlement to the complainant. Inter alia to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) as compensation and Rs.2,000/-(two thousand) towards cost of litigation to the complainant.

ii.         All the above directions shall be complied with in 30 days of this order, failing which, the total monetary awarded sum will carry 12% interest per annum till its realization. Pronounced on 22nd day of July' 2016.

           Sd/-                                                              Sd/-               

        MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT, DCDRF,

                                                                     NABARANGPUR.

Date of Preparation: 

Date of dispatch      :  

Date of received by                                                           

the A/A for Ops / Complainant  :

Initial of the dispatcher.