SRI.R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER.
This is a complaint filed Under Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for getting insurance claim Rs.2,50,000/-, legal fee Rs.5000/- compensation for mental agony and suffering Rs.1,45,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
The complainant’s case is that the 1st opp.party did not care to entertain the complainant’s genuine claim for damages sustained to his distribution firm, due to the fire occurrence.
The case of 1st opp.party is that the complainant had not produced any authentic documents in order to substantiate the claim before the Surveyor and Loss Assessor appointed by the opp.parties in spite of repeated demands. The complainant is trying to make unlawful gain on account of the unfortunate mishap of fire occurrence happened in the premises., where the insured items were stored.
There is no case against 2nd opp.party and the 2nd opp.party is made as a party only because the statement of stocks of the Firm are with them and no claim is made against the 2nd opp.party
The complainant filed affidavit. PW.1 examined Exts. P1 to P6 marked.
From the side of opp.parties
DW.1 and DW.2 examined and Exts. D1 to D4 marked.
The points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of 1st oppp.party?
2. Compensation and cost.
Points 1 and 2
The case of the complainant is that the complainant is the holder of policy bearing NO.760904/48/05/34/00000 385, that the complainant is residing in the above address and conducting a distribution firm Indo Falcon by name running the sale of provision goods and stationery.. The complainant insured the above shop and articles with the 1st opp.party for a period of one year from 28.3.2006 to midnight of 27.3.2007 for Rs.2.5 lakhs coverage. The premium amount Rs.3174/- was paid at Kottarakkara branch. In the early morning 3.30 a.m. on 27.3.2007 the shop got fired. All the provision , stationery etc stored in the go down were destroyed fully. The matter was informed to fire force immediately and they reached soon, but articles were fully destroyed. The delivery van which was parking near to the premises was moved to a little distance by the fire force. The complainant informed the matter on that day itself to the 1st opp.party. The Loss Assessor inspected the spot and thereafter the complainant has received letter from a surveyor/loss assessor namely one D. Prasad who blame that the complainant had not produced the stock register book, purchase bills sales book, etc. within one week. The complainant replied stating that all the valuable things were lost in the fire and the complainant produced the purchase bills and stock statement from the bank and the loss comes to be more than Rs.2.5 lakhs. The complainant removed the remnants only after the loss assessor inspected the site. The statement of stock balance in the go down will be served to the opp.parties on every month. The stock balance for the last six months is produced. This goes to show that the stock will be nearly Rs. 4 lakhs. The stock balance in the month of February goes to show that the stock balance will be up to Rs.3,79,775/-. The photocopy of the statement given to the bank for the last six months is produced with this complaint . After repeated demands through letter and by phone, the 1st opp.party did not care to entertain the complainant’s claim. After the fire destroyed the business of the complainant, the installment of the Bank is not remitting due to the pathetic condition of complainant. Due to the above said acts of 1st opp.party the complainant suffered mental agony and economic loss for which the 1st opp.party is liable to compensate. The denial of claim by the 1st opp.party is violation of the rules and regulations of insurance policy. So there is deficiency of service, dereliction of duty on the part of the company in dealing with the alleged matter.. Hence this complaint.
1st opp.party filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The 1st opp.party had issued a shop keepers insurance policy to the complainant for a sum insured of Rs.6,00,000/- for a period commencing from 28..3.. 2006 to 27..3..2007 for the stock in trade kept inside the shop premises covering the risk of fire and allied perils including furniture fixtures and fittings in the insured shop premises. The sum insured given in the said policy is solely based on the declaration given by the complainant about the value of the stock he was keeping in his shop room. The complainant on 27..3..2007 has reported a claim before the 1st opp.party stating that the insured shop caught fire on the very same day at the early hours of 3.30 A.M. and the stocks kept in the shop room were destroyed resulting to a loss of Rs.2,25,000/- The opp.party immediately issued a claim form to the complainant . The 1st opp.party thereafter deputed a licensed surveyor and loss assessor Mr.D. Prasad for conducting survey and loss assessment on the claim reported by the complainant. The surveyor visited the shop premises of the complainant on the very same day along with the Divisional Manager of the opp.party at about 4.00 p.m. The complainant was also present at the insured premises while the surveyor visited the fire affected shop premises. The surveyor Mr.S. Prasad, he found that the interior portion of the insured shop premises was affected in the reported fire occurrence. He found that the remnants of burned items were lying on the floor of the fire affected area in wet condition. It was brought to the notice of the surveyor that the office steal table with plywood/mica on its top lying at the front office room was seen unaffected in the fire mishap. The account books ten in numbers and sale bill books six in numbers in the regular use of the insured shop kept in the office rooms wall wood shelf was found unaffected in the fire occurrence except the slight water damages caused due to the fire fighting operation by the Fire Force Authorities. The complainant who was present at the shop premises promised the surveyor that the above stock register, accounts book and sales bills will be produced for verification of the surveyor after drying the slight water damages caused to them. It has further noticed by the surveyor that the stock of goods in trade of the insured premises was seen loaded in the delivery van parking near the insured shop premises and the delivery van and the goods loaded inside the van are found to be free from any fire damages. The surveyor after detailed examination of the fire mishap has specifically requested the complainant to keep the fire affected premises intact without any change or disturbance till drying of the remnants lying on the floor so as to enable the surveyor to segregate these remnants and to identify it for the purpose of assessment of the loss. The surveyor on 28.3.2007 sent a letter to the complainant with a request to produce the stock register book, purchased bills, copy of the sale bills along with other relevant stock details available with the complainant before the surveyor in order to quantify the extent of loss sustained to the complainant in the fire mishap. The surveyor again visited the shop premises in order to assess the damage sustained to the complainant. But surprisingly it is brought to the notice of the surveyor that the complainant had removed all the remnants of the stock from the fire affected building and cleaned the floor of the building on the very next day itself instead of waiting for drying the water damage remnants, without the knowledge of surveyor. The stock register book and sale bill books which were seen kept on the wall reported as completely damaged in the fire occurrence the complainant deliberately removed the above registers and documents from the shop premises. The complainant deliberately and willfully obstructed and denied the opportunity for the surveyor to assess the extent of loss sustained to the complainant. The surveyor on 6.7.2007 sent a registered letter to the complainant requesting him to produce the documents such as stock register book within one week from the receipt of that letter enabling the surveyor to assess the extent of loss. The complainant did not respond to the above letter and took an evasive stand in the claim reported by him without co-operating with the surveyor for assessing the actual loss sustained to him. The allegation made in the complaint that he had sent a reply to the surveyor for the registered letter issued by the surveyor is absolutely false and baseless. The complainant failed to produce any such documents and took an indifferent stand with out co-operating with surveyor. So the surveyor constrained to file a survey report before the opp.party without assessing any loss sustained to the complainant in the reported fire mishap. The complainant in this case deliberately violated the terms and conditions of the policy The complainant was not keeping any of the records relating to the periodical sale tax returns expected to be filed by him before the sales tax authorities under the statutory provisions. The complainant had produced only the monthly statements furnished by him before Central Bank of India from where he had availed a loan facility for his business purpose The statement is only a stereo type . As per the fire report prepared by the fire force authorities the approximate loss assessed by them about the loss sustained to the stock kept inside the shop premises only Rs.30,000/- The compensation claimed by the complainant against the opp.party is not payable and the same is lacking any legal bearings. There is no deficiency in the service performed by the 1st opp.party in deciding the claim lodged by the complainant.. The complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine with heavy compensatory cost to the opp.party.
The 2nd opp.party filed a separate version stating that the complainant is an account holder of the bank with A/c.No.66 . He had availed a loan ie. Cash credit limit of Rs.2 lakhs for running a distributor firm by name M/s. Indo Falcon against hypothecation of stock of provision and stationery goods and it is true that as per last available stock statement dated 28.2.2007 the value of stock is Rs.3,79,775/- The stock was insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Kottarakkara first on 28.3.2006 and Policy No.760904/48/05/34/00000385 for sum assured Rs.6,00,000/- for the period 28.3.2006 to 27.3.2007 and premium paid Rs.3,174/- and secondly on 15.3.2007 with policy No.760904/48/06/34/00000457 for sum assured Rs.3.5 lakhs for period from 15.3.2007 to 14..3..2008 and premium paid Rs.1,905/-. The statements and allegations in para 3 to 8 are not with in the knowledge of 2nd opp.party The present balance outstanding amount due to the Bank is Rs.2,14,751/39. Since there is Bank Clause and Hypothecation, the 2nd opp.party is entitled for the award amount.
Admittedly the complainant is the holder of an Insurance Policy issued by the 1st opp.party vide policy NO.760904/48/05/34/00000385 by which the complainant insured his stock and other articles with 1st opp.party for a period of one year from 28.3.2006 to midnight of 27.3.2007 for 6,00,000/- . Premium amount Rs.3174/- was paid by the complainant . It is also admitted that in the early morning 3.30 a.m. on 27.3.2007 the shop got fired and the matter was informed to the 1st opp.party immediately. The 1st opp.party appointed a surveyor namely D. Prasad and he had inspected the shop on the very same day itself. It is further admitted that the complainant who is a whole sale dealer in provision goods and stationery had availed a loan from the 2nd opp.party for running his business.
The main contention of the 1st opp.party is that the complainant deliberately and willfully obstructed and denied the opportunity for the Surveyor to assess the actual loss sustained to the complainant. The complainant acted against the specific request to the complainant to keep the fire affected, premises intact without any change and disturbance till drying of the remnants lying on the floor to identify it for the purpose of assessment of the loss sustained by the complainant in the fire mishap.
According to the complainant he had removed the remnants from the premises after the 1st inspection by the surveyor and with the knowledge of the surveyor. While in cross examination also the complainant had stated that the remnants are removed with the knowledge and consent the surveyor. He had further stated that no letter was received from the surveyor intimating to produce the stock Register and other Registers. It is also stated by the complainant that the surveyor had visited the premises for the 2nd time only after a lapse of 25 days from the date of the fire occurrence. But the surveyor he stated in his oral textimony that he had visited the premises for the 2nd time, after 3 days from his 1st visit. He had further stated that at the time of the 2nd visit the books ,were not seen in the wooden shelf and that books registers and remnants in the premises was removed by the complainant Even though the surveyor stated that he had instructed the complainant not to remove the remnants, he had not produce any evidence for prove the same. He had clarified that only an oral instruction was given to the complainant for the 1st time and secondly sent a letter. He had further admitted that there is no documentary evidence to prove the same. The learned counsel for the complainant put the question that “A§s\ Hcp I¯-b--¨n-«n-Ãm-¯-Xp-sIm-mWv tcJ-lm-P-cm-¡m-Xn-cp-¶-sX¶p ]d-bp¶p.”DW.1 answered that “I¯-b-¨n-cp-¶p. tIm¸n CÃm-bn-cp-¶p.” He had stated that he is not remembering the date on which he had visited the premises for the 2nd time the Surveyor further admitted that no evidence was produced to prove that the intimation was given to the complainant regarding his 2nd visit. It is admitted by the surveyor in his oral testimony that the proceeding of the 2nd visit was not witnessed or signed by the complainant or any other independent witness
The above said circumstances leads to the opinion that the surveyor had not given proper intimation to the complainant that the remnants should not be removed with out getting intimation from the surveyor . It is hard to believe that he had made his 2nd visit 3 days after his 1st visit . The statement made by the surveyor that copy of the intimation letter was not taken also is unbelievable . The fire occurrence was at the early morning 3.30 a.m. on 27.3.2007. The 1st visit of the surveyor was on 28.3.2007 . If it was true that he had made his 2nd visit after 3 days of his 1st visit, why he has not made any enquiry about the purchase and sales records on that day. He is claiming that he had sent notice on 28.3.2007 the date of to his 1st visit itself . It is also unbelievable. The opp.party failed to prove with cogent proof that he had given proper intimation of his 2nd visit to the complainant..
Another contention of the opp.party is that the complainant took an indifferent stand and so, the surveyor filed report without conducting any survey. The illegal action, non co-operation and indifferent attitude of the complainant leads to such a situation. As per para 5 of the policy condition the Insured shall give all necessary information for the assessment of loss. But this complainant had taken an indifferent attitude towards instructions given by the opp.parties. The complainant has not responded to the letter issued by the 1st opp.party cautioning that if the Registers are not produced he will sent his report without assessing the damages.
It is stated in Ext. D3 Survey Report page NO.3 ‘Details Noticed at the time of inspection item 5 that the Account book 10 numbers and Sales bill book 6 numbers of the insured kept on the office room wall wood shelf was found unaffected in the fire occurrence. These books were slightly wet affected due to the entry of water in the fire fighting process and hence kept for drying. The insured promised that after getting dry these books will be produced for verification’.
It is further stated in details of assessment that “At the time of inspection the undersigned request the insured to keep the affected premises without change till drying of the remnants on the floor, to enable me to Segregate these remnants and identify it for the purpose of Loss Assessing But instead of waiting for drying, the insured removed all the remnants from the affected building and cleared the floor on the next day itself without any knowledge”.
It is further stated in item NO.II of the ‘Details of Assessment’ that ‘the undersigned requested the insured to keep the stock Register, Books and Sale bill books for verification, which we were seen kept on the wall wood shelf at the front office room of the insured premises at the time of survey were later reported as completely damaged in the fire occurrence.’
From the above said statement it is clear that the remnants in the premises were in wet condition due to the fire fighting operations and conducting a detailed survey was impossible at that time. The surveyor has stated while in examination that “ NpSp-I« Xd-bn C«mWv \S-¶p-t]m-b-Xv. But it is very pertinent that the surveyor has not tried even to conduct a preliminary survey on that day. From his statements itself it is obvious that he had simply visited the premises, taken some photographs and had given some instructions to the complainant . He admits that the purchase book bill books and other Registers found unaffected and these books were only slightly wet affected. If it is true, what prevented him from collecting those records from the fire affected premises? The surveyor is not consistent in his statements. In the version filed by the 1st opp.party it is stated that the complainant ‘promised’ to the surveyor that these books will be produced for verification of the surveyor after drying. It is further stated that the surveyor after detailed examination of fire mishap has specifically ‘requested ‘to the complainant to keep the fire affected premises intact But the Surveyor had stated in chief examination that “ shffw dry. Bb-tijw Fs¶ Adn-bn-¡-W-sa¶pw Inspect sNbvX-ti-jta km[-\-§Äam-ämhq F¶pw ]d-ªp. sales Stock Register DW-§nb tijw surveyor ap³]msIlmP-cm-¡-W-sa¶pw ]d-ªp. DW.1 has stated further in chief examination that “Office room  table Dw kao-]¯p Hcp book shelf Dw Dv Sales, stock records maintain sN¿p-¶Xv B shelf  BWv AXp sNdp-Xmbn Xpd-¶p-t\m-¡n-b-tijw AS-¨p-h¨p Stock Sales kw_Ôamb tcJ-IÄ BWv AsX¶p a\-kn-em-bn. Shelf sâbpw Register Ifp-sS-bpw Photographs At¸mÄ Xs¶ FSp¯p
On perusal of Ext. D3 photograph we find that the wooden shelf was fully opened
It is also stated in items IVand V of details of Assessment in Survey Report that IV:- under these circumstances, the fire caught on the expiry date of the Insurance Policy issued and held by the Insured can also be a doubtful case.”
Item V “ From all this the undersigned is of the opinion that this is a very doubtful claim and the every possible evidence to assess the reported claim has been purposefully denied by the proprietor of M/s. Indo Falcon, Pathanapuram.
It is further stated in “cause of Fire occurrence” that after detailed enquiry and inspection at the affected insured premises, I am of the opinion that fire might have caught from the kitchen of the said affected building. This can happen accidentally due to the negligence and at the same time purposefully. In this case the fire has occurred on the expiry date of Insurance Policy and also possible evidence left for assessing the loss was purposefully denied”.
In the conclusion part of the Report also he had stated that “in my finding the stock of goods in trade of M/s. Indo Falcon, Pathanapuram was seen lying unaffected in the delivery van of the said concern. Under these circumstances, the undersigned could not assess the loss on stock of goods if any in the insured premises.”
The 1st opp.party repudiated the claim on the basis of the Report submitted by the surveyor . As stated earlier it is obvious from the inconsistency in the statements of the surveyor regarding the reason of non assessment of loss and the cause of Fire occurrence itself that Surveyor has prepared the Report with prejudice and under presumptions.
The 1st opp.party has no case that the fire occurrence is a concocted story. No contention was raised by 1st opp.party that there was no fire occurrence in the premises where the provisions and stationery were stored and that the stored items were not destroyed by fire
The reason for fire occurrence stated in Ext.P2, fire report is the defect in Electric circuit. If the surveyor felt any doubt about the reason for fire occurrence and that it was happened due to the negligence or it was done purposefully what restricted him from reporting that aspect to the 1st opp.party at proper time and to take initiative to conduct a proper investigation regarding this incident? The statement in the Report that ‘after a detailed enquiry and inspection at the affected insured premises I am of the opinion that the fire might have caught from the kitchen of the said affected building’ is only an assumption. It is pertinent to note here that the time of fire occurrence was at 2.30 a.m. on 27.3.2007 . Normally there is no chance of fire in the kitchen at that time. The surveyor has not stated any genuine reason which leads him to that conclusion. It is also pertinent that the delivery van was parking near to the building where fire occurrence had been taken place. If the complainant had any deliberate intention to commit fraud they could have easily remove the delivery van which contained stock of stationery items
The learned counsel for the 1st opp.party argued that the complainant had deliberately and willfully obstructed and avoided the surveyor from making an assessment of actual loss sustained in the shop and purposefully evaded the production of relevant document before the surveyor for verifying the details of stock and sales details etc.
As per Para 5 III of the policy condition it is the duty of the complainant that in the event of any claim the insured shall give necessary information and assistance to enable the company to settle the claim.
Regarding this aspect we are of the opinion that no deliberate and willful act was done by the complainant to obstruct or avoid actual loss assessment. The Surveyor is the only person who is liable for the non assessment of damages. It is the duty of the surveyor to collect all relevant records under the safe custody for the purpose of proper assessment. It is also pertinent to note here that even though the surveyor pointed out in his report that the delivery van was loaded with stock in trade and no fire damage was caused to the van he has not made any attempt even to assess the stock contained in the delivery van. There was no hindrance in the way to make proper assessment of the stock kept in the delivery van which is very important in this case as the business is the distribution of stationery goods .
The learned counsel for the 1st opp.party further argued that the allegation of the complainant that he was keeping stock worth Rs.4,00,000/- in the shop premises and entire stocks was destroyed due to the fire accident is absolutely false and baseless. In order to substantiate this argument he had taken attention of the Forum to Ext.P2 Fire Report prepared by the Station Office, Fire Station, Punalur. He had pointed out that as per records in the Fire Report they have reached the spot and put off the fire within 10 minutes. According to their assessment the probable damage of items inside the shop premises as a result of the mishap Rs.30,000/- In variably in all fire report the assessment made by the officers will be higher side than the actual Since the Fire Authorities put off fire within 10 minutes the gravity of the occurrence is naturally a minor incident.
We have perused Ext. P2 Fire Report is detail. It is recorded in Ext.P2 that the actual time of fire occurrence was at 2.30 a.m. . It was reported to the fire Station at 3.50 a.m. The fire fighting team started at 3.51 a.m. and their arrival at the spot was at 4.05 a.m. and the Departure from the fire occurrence place was 5.15 a.m. on 27.3.2007 . It is stated that the fire force team worked to put off the fire for one hour and 10 minutes. It is also noted in Ext. P2 that the nature of the fire occurrence is serious. It is also recorded that total price of items included in the fire occurrence is Rs.3,00,000/- [3 lakhs] and the damages of building Rs.1,00,000/- From these records it is obvious that the fire occurrence lasted for more than 2 ½ hours and the fire force could put off the fire after fighting with the fire for one hour and ten minutes. It reveals that the fire occurrence was very serious and not a minor incident as argued by the learned counsel for the 1st opp.aprty.
It is argued by the 1st opp.party that the policy is issued by 1st opp.party solely on the basis of the declaration given by the complainant at the time of proposing fire insurance. The sum insured given in the policy is fully based on the declaration and not on the basis of any pre-inspection or verification of any authentic records about the quantity of stocks kept in the shop and the allegation of the complainant that he was keeping stock worth Rs.4,00,000/- in the shop premises and the entire stocks were destroyed due to the Fire incident is absolutely false and baseless.
Ext. D1 policy certificate itself shows that the 1st opp.party had received Rs.3174/- as premium for the sum insured of Rs.6,00,000/- for the period of from 28.3.2006 to 27.3.07 and secondly received premium of Rs.1905/- for a sum insured of Rs.3.5. lakhs for the period from 15.3.2007 to 14.3.2008. The contention raised by the 1st opp.party after the fire occurrence had taken place cannot be accepted and this contention will not sustain. The act of issuance of policy without pre inspection is not a fault committed by the complainant and this contention at the stage of claim cannot be justified. 1st Opp.party is only responsible for the non pre-inspection of stock. More over all this the 1st opp.party is well aware that the complainant had availed Loan from the 2nd opp.party for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for the purpose of running his business and complainant periodically submits statement of stocks before the 2nd opp.party.
The complainant relied on Ext. P5 the attested true copy of periodical statement submitted by the complainant before Central Bank of India, Pathanapuram Branch, the 2nd opp.party, which shows a balance of stock for the value of Rs.379775/- as on 28.2.2007 . The learned counsel for the 1st opp.party argued that Ext. P5 submitted as a pre condition of loan availed by the complainant is not at all an admissible document to assess physical stock kept by the complainant in the shop at the time of occurrence. It is further argued that as the shop inspection records on the basis of Ext.P5 were not produced by the Manager of the 2nd opp.party, it necessarily leads to the presumption that there is no such practice of conducting any inspection by the bank officials in order to cross check the genuiness of the stock statement submitted by the loanee.
Even though it is true that no further records was not produced by PW.2 the Manager of 2nd opp.party we cannot say that Ext.P5 is an authenticated document. True copy of the statement was duly attested by the Manager of 2nd opp.party at the time of its submission by the complainant. We cannot come to the conclusion that there is no such practice of conducting periodical inspection by the bank officials in order to cross check the genuinity of the report submitted by the loanee. PW.2 clearly stated in her oral testimony that Ext.P5 series accepted by inspecting the site and there is such practice of periodical inspection.
The learned counsel for the 1st opp.party had produced the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2004 CPJ Volume IV page 49 in which it is held the validity and necessity of Assessment of Insurance claim which has to be made by a Licensed Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor as governed by the provision of 64 UM of the Insurance Act. The Apex Court held that it is a mandatory requirement that the claim payable under an insurance contract has to be necessarily assessed by a Licensed Surveyor and Loss Assessor.
As per Section 64 [UM] of Insurance Act it is mandatory to obtain a report from a person who hold a License issued under this section to act as an Approved Surveyor and Loss Assessor.. Here in this case DW.1 was appointed as the surveyor as per the provisions in the Law. He had visited the site of fire occurrence for two times as claimed by him. First inspection was conducted by him and he is claiming that the purchase and sales records were seen by him. But he failed to collect the relevant records from the spot and to conduct inspection in order to prepare assessment of loss sustained to the complainant. He had failed even to assess the stock of goods in trade which was loaded in delivery van.. As he had admitted that he is not remembering the date of his 2nd visit and in the circumstances that he had failed to prove that his 2nd visit was on the 3rd day of his 1st visit , we are constrained to believe the words of complainant that he had visited for the 2nd time only after 25 days of the fire occurrence. We are of the opinion that the surveyor had taken an indifferent attitude towards the claim of the complainant. He had approached this matter with prejudice and failed to conduct the survey with available materials. The surveyor who is well aware that the survey report is inevitable to settle the claim and who is responsible to collect relevant materials and to prepare Loss Assessment miserably failed perform his bounden duty. In our opinion no value can be attributed to the report of the surveyor in this case. . The 1st opp.party repudiated the claim of the complainant only on the basis of the report submitted by the Surveyor.
We have considered all the facts and circumstances in this case. We have thoroughly verified the entire documents before us and have given
thoughtful consideration to the argument of the learned counsels for both sides. We find that there is deficiency in service from the part of 1st opp.party The points found accordingly. In the absence of a survey report we are constrained to believe the statement of loss submitted by the complainant before the Forum and Ext. P5 statement. We have also considered the fact that part of stock in trade which was kept in the Delivery Van was not destroyed by fire occurrence .
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The 1st opp.party is directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of fire occurrence till the date of this order . The 1st opp.party is further directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and suffering and cost Rs.1500/- to the complainant.
The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order in default it will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order and till the date of payment.
Dated this the 28th day of September, 2012.
I N D E X
List of witnesses for the complainant
PW.1. – Shine.A.S.
PW.2. – Jancy Koshy
List of documents for the complainant
P1. – Information letter
P2. – Fire report
P3. – Loss Assessor’s report dt. 6.7.07
P4. – Letter dated 13.7.07
P5. – Stock register
P6. – Original policy.
List of witnesses for the opp.parties
DW.1. – Prasad
DW.2. - Jayaraman
List of documents for the opp.parties
D1. – Insurance policy with conditions
D2. – The letter issued by the surveyor to the complainant dt. 6.7.2007
D3. – Survey report submitted by the surveyor dt. 30.7.2007
D4. - Policy and condition
