Per Smt T. Suneetha, Member:-

This complaint is filed U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, Seeking directions on opposite party to pay Rs.5,57,560/- towards Insurance policy amount, Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation for loss of goods and mental agony.     

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are hereunder:

          The complainant insured his stocks of cotton against fire, flood, cyclone etc., with opposite party for Rs.10,00,000/- under policy bearing No.462300/11/2010/515 valid from 26-02-10 to 25-02-11. 

        On 04-12-10 the insured/complainant’s stocks worth Rs.9,30,000/- were burnt into ashes in a fire accident which occurred on account of short circuit of electricity.  The opposite party appointed a Surveyor who inspected the premises of the complainant.  The complainant furnished all the relevant information oral and documentary to the Surveyor such as stock register, invoices, VAT slips, certificate from fire department, electricity department and FIR, claim form etc. to the Surveyor. 

        The Surveyor after conducting the survey furnished the report to the opposite party.  The opposite party after lapse of 8 months offered to pay an amount of Rs.3,72,440/- towards claim.  The complainant having not accepted the offer requested the opposite party to explain how the opposite party arrived at that figure and further requested to furnish the Surveyor report so as to enable the complainant to satisfy the opposite party with regard to that quantum of loss suffered as claimed by the complainant.  Without caring the request made by the complainant the opposite party just offered to pay the sum of Rs.3,72,440/- which the complainant received without prejudice to his rights.   Thereupon the complainant made a request to the opposite party to furnish the Surveyor report under Right to Information Act, by paying necessary amount through challan.  But the opposite party did not care to furnish the same.  Thus the conduct of the opposite party in not disclosing the reasons and grounds on which the claim amount is arrived at and not furnishing the Surveyor report inspite of request made by the complainant under Right to Information Act, shows the high handedness of the opposite party.  The complainant hailed from the middle class family and is a small business man.  On account of the non settlement of the claim within the stipulated time by the opposite party the complainant constrained to make the payment of interest to its bank and thereby suffered heavy loss.  Therefore, there is deficiency on the part of the opposite party.  Thus the complaint.   

3.    Opposite party filed its version which is in brief as follows.

        It is true that the complainant obtained fire policy No.462300/11/2010/515 valid from 26-02-10 to 25-02-2011 and it is in force by the date of alleged fire accident.  After receipt of intimation the opposite party appointed qualified Surveyor by name Mr.M.Purnachandra Rao, who assessed the loss in the presence of insured/complainant basing on information provided by him and on physical verification.  The Surveyor submitted a report calculating net loss of Rs.3,75,168.59ps after salvage, basing on which the opposite party settled the claim of the complainant for Rs.3,72,440/-.  The complainant received the said amount in full and final settlement of his claim and accordingly signed on the discharge voucher dated 30-08-11 without any protest.  Under these circumstances it is frivolous and meaningless to allege that the complainant received the said amount without prejudice to his rights and towards part payment. 

        There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. 

4.      The complainant and opposite party filed their respective affidavits. Exs.A-1 to A-15 were marked on behalf of the complainant.  Exs. B-1 to B-4 were marked on behalf of the opposite party.    

5.      Now the points that arose for consideration in this          complaint are:       

1.  Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of      

     service?

2.   Whether the complainant is entitled to claim amount and

      compensation?

3.  To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

6.      POINT NO. 1:- The Complainant’s allegation is that he accepted the claim amount of Rs.3,72,440/-Offered by the opposite party, without prejudice to his rights and under threat of delay in settlement.  He further alleged that inspite of complaint filed under Right to Information Act he was not served the Surveyor’s report.  The Opposite party’s contention was that the claim amount received by complainant was in full and final settlement of his claim voluntarily without any protest. 

The fire accident in the complainant’s business premises took place on 04-12-2010.  The Surveyor inspected the same on 05-12-10 to 07-12-10 and again after segregation on 20-12-10.

The date in the Surveyor’s report 20-02-11 was corrected as   26-08-11 by the Surveyor Mr.Poornachandra Rao. It appears that though the report was prepared on 20-02-11 it was put into the complainant’s notice just before few days of settlement i.e. 30-08-11.  The opposite party didn’t file any document to show that they served the report to the complainant.  The opposite party didn’t produce the photographs of the fire accident to the Forum’s perusal. 

  In the circumstance, an adverse inference can be drawn that the opposite party delayed settlement of complainant’s claim and brought a situation that the complainant had to agree to the amount the opposite party proposed. 

The complainant’s anguish was expressed in the letter Ex.B-3 requesting the opposite party to settle the claim at the earliest, since it had been already 9 months delay as he had to pay the amounts to the farmers.  No doubt the complainant under went pressure and under threat of delay in payment he accepted the claim and in part satisfaction. 

(The following citations filed by the opposite parties are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

  2012 (1) CPR (NC) National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case between Pulkit Genral Store and National Insurance Co.Ltd, through Dy.Manager. 

II (2012) CPJ 260 (NC) National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in a case between Bhukker Electricals and Oriental Insurance Company. 

 III (2012) CPJ 281 (NC) National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in a case between Avon Automobiles and National Insurance Company Ltd., & Anr.)

In view of above discussion the Forum opines that the opposite party not serving the Surveyor report to the complainant and pressurizing him to accept for the sum offered by them is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice too.  The point is answered accordingly.

7.      POINT NO.2:-    The complainant questioned the correctness of the suveyor’s report by filing interrogatories to the opposite party. But the complainant did not file any evidence like report obtained by another surveyor  or expert opinion etc. In absence of such evidence Forum cannot decide the claim merely basing on the complainant’s allegations.  In those circumstances forum comes to a considered opinion  to direct the opposite party to settle the claim on non standard basis ie; 75% of the claim amount of Rs.9,30,000/-. The 75% of claim amount is Rs.6,97,500/-(Rs.9,30,000 X 75/100).  The opposite party already gave Rs.3,72,440/- on 30-08-11 to the complainant. Hence, the complainant is entitled to receive Rs.3,25,060/- (Rs.6,97,500 – 3,72,440/-) from the opposite party.  

The compensation sought by the complainant was Rs.2,50,000/- towards loss of goods, mental agony, pain and suffering.  The compensation should commensurate the loss suffered by the complainant.  The complainant did not produce any details of payments to the farmers.  Therefore the Forum opines that allowing just compensation of Rs.10,000/- would meet the ends of justice. 

8.   POINT NO. 3-   In the result, the complaint is allowed in part in terms as indicated below : 

1. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.3,25,060/- (Rupees three lakhs twenty five thousand sixty only) to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from 30-08-11 till realization. 
2. The opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards deficiency of service to the complainant. 
3. The opposite party is further directed to pay
   Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs to the complainant. 
4.  The above order shall be complied within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the amounts ordered in Item No.2 shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till the realization. 

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 3^rd day of January, 2013.

MEMBER                                                                                  PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties: -

PRESIDENT