DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 06 of  2024

 

 

Sri Kallol Dey,

S/O- Late Prithwish Dey,

Datta Kutir Lane near Sankar Chowmuhani,

P.S. West Agartala, P.O. Agartala,

District- West Tripura,

Pin- 799001.

 

Proprietor of - 

Gomoti Fishing Materials,

South Anandanagar, S.K. Para,

P.O. Agartala College,

P.S. East Agartala, Agartala,

West Tripura- 799004. .......Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Head Office- New India Assurance Building- 87,

M.G. Road, Fort,

Mumbai-400001.

 

 

2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

Divisional Office, Agartala Branch,

Represented by its 

Divisional Manager,

Agartala Divisional Office,

4, Mantribari Road, Agartala, 

West Tripura-799001.  .......Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

 

   ________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR(SMT) BINDU PAUL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the O.P. No.1 : Exparte.

 

For  the  O.P. No.2 : Sri Gitanshu Sekhar Das,

 

 

 

 

 

 

F I N A L    O R D E R

1. The complainant, Sri Kallol Dey is the holder of Policy of Insurance with the O.P. covering physical loss or damage of the insured property relating to his business of Fishing Net, Twine, Rubber Sheet and other goods kept in his business premises. The sum assured was Rs.20 lakhs. The complainant regularly paid annual premium time to time w.e.f. 07.08.2022 to 06.08.2023. This business is the only source of his livelihood by way of self employment. 

1.1 On 02.01.2023 at around 9.30. P.M. fire broke out in the smoke room of the business premises of the complainant. Consequently rubber sheets and other stocks raw materials were damaged for approximately Rs.8,45,830.72/-.

1.2 The complainant after the fire broke out informed the fire Service Authority and fire was extinguished and assessed damage suffered by the complainant.

 

1.3 On 03.01.2023 the complainant informed O.P. No.2 about the damage he suffered along with relevant documents. Consequently the O.P. Insurance company surveyed the loss suffered by the complainant. 

1.4 On 12.01.2023 the Divisional Fire Officer communicated a report of damage to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs.

1.5 On 18.01.2023 the O.P. No.2 vide letter asked the complainant to furnish all necessary documents for taking action. Consequently on 08.02.2023 the complainant communicated all necessary documents including the assessment report of the Divisional Fire Officer, Agartala but the O.Ps took no action.

1.6 On 04.05.2023 the complainant submitted a representation with the O.P. No.2 to settle the claim for Rs.8,45,830.72/-.

1.7 Thereafter, the O.P. finally sanctioned a sum of Rs.3,66,180/- out of the claimed amount of Rs.8,45,830.72/-.

1.8 Consequently on 14.09.2023 the complainant served a Demand Notice claiming the rest amount but to no good. However, the surveyor appointed by the O.P. Insurance company never informed any assessment report to the complainant.

1.9 Hence, this complaint for payment of the total claimed amount of Rs.8,45,830.72/- with interest, compensation etc. 

 

2. The case has been proceeding exparte against the O.P. No.1 vide order dated 28.03.2024 as the O.P. No.1 did not appear. 

2.1 O.P. No.2, however, submitted written objection wherein the O.P. No.2 denies the damage for Rs.8,45,830.72/- although admitted the fire incident and pleaded that the Fire Service Department is not authorized to make any assessment of loss. Rather, the appointed surveyor  of the Insurance Company surveyed assessment of loss. 

2.2 As per the guideline of IRDA only a licentiate assessor appointed by the Government of India has to ascertain the damage suffered by the complainant. The surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company assessed the damage for Rs.3,85,453/- from which 5% was deducted as the complainant failed to submit audit report. Hence, payment for Rs.3,66,180/- was allowed.

2.3 The complainant was asked to submit satisfaction voucher within 7 days as per assessment of the surveyor, otherwise the matter shall be disposed of as “NO CLAIM”. 

 

3. The complainant submitted evidence on affidavit with documents including the policy of Insurance, company, assessment report by the Office of the Divisional Fire Officer calculating the damage as Rs.10 lakhs in total. 

3.1 The O.P. Insurance company submitted evidence on affidavit including the Survey Report of the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Co. wherein total damage was mentioned as Rs.3,85,453.00/-.

 

 

4. During the course of argument Learned Counsel of the complainant argued that the surveyor never contacted the complainant and never communicated any report and the report of the surveyor did not consider the damage to the premises for Rs.3 lakhs as 2 nos. of rubber smoke rooms along with 5 tone rubber sheets were damaged.

4.1 Per contra Learned Counsel of the O.P. Insurance Company argued that the report of the Insurance company is conclusive. 

 

5. Considering the evidences and arguments  the following points are taken up for discussion and decision:-

 

 

Decision and reasons for decision:-

6. Both the points are taken up together for discussion and decision.

6.1 According to the surveyor of Insurance Company the smoke house is not covered by the policy condition as mentioned. In observation – 6, of the report the surveyor also assessed loss of Rs.4,88,066.54/- but deducted 20% i.e., Rs.97,613.31/- making a total sum of Rs.3,90,453.23/- and after that deducted a further sum of Rs.5,000/- as policy excess and fixed net liability of Rs.3,85,453/-.

6.2 On perusal of the Policy of Insurance, we find that finished stock was insured for Rs.20 Lakhs and in block details, building, furniture, plant and machineries have not been shown as insured. Rather,  only finished stock was shown to have been insured for Rs.20 Lakhs. Therefore, we find that the building and smoke house were not insured at all. However, the damage assessed by the Office of the Fire Divisional office immediate after the incident was shown to be Rs.7 lakhs approximately as damage to the contents and damage to the premises has been separately shown as Rs.3 Lakhs. 

6.3 On perusal of the report of the surveyor of the Insurance company it is not understandable why 20% less was assessed although the surveyor had taken lowest sale rate of rubber latex for calculating value at risk as well as for assessment of the loss there of. As such this deduction of Rs.97,613.31/- appears to be arbitrary. Therefore, the gross assessment of Rs.4,88,066.54/- is to be considered as justified amount and report of the Fire Service Authority has not shown  detail description of the loss to the contents. As such the report of the surveyor is partly accepted as loss of Rs.4,88,066.54/- for loss of contents and no damage can be awarded for the loss of smoke house, building etc. as per Policy of Insurance those were not insured at all.   

 

7. In the result, it is ordered that the O.P. Insurance company shall pay the sum of Rs.4,88,066.54/- to the complainant within 30 days from today. Otherwise it shall carry interest @ 7.5% P.A. from today till the date of actual payment. The O.P. shall pay a further sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the complainant which is inclusive of litigation cost.

8. All the points are decided accordingly.

9. The case stands disposed off. 

10. Supply free copy of this order to the parties. 

  

Announced.

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

DR(SMT) BINDU PAUL

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.