Date of Filing: 27.03.2010<br /> Date of Order: 22.11.2010<br /> <br /> 2<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 667 OF 2010<br /> <br /> M/s. Techno City Digital Electronics<br /> Pvt. Ltd., No. 53, K.H. Road<br /> Bangalore 560 027<br /> Rep. by its Manager<br /> N. Venugopal Nair Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬<br /> <br /> The New India Assurance Company<br /> Divisional Office No. 11<br /> Unity Buildings, Bangalore 560 002 Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> The facts of the case are that complainant is a company carrying business in electronics items. The complainant had obtained Standard Fire and Special Perils Insurance Policy from opposite party and also from Oriental Insurance Company. On 14.03.2005 fire broke out at complainant’s showroom. Complainant intimated the incident and loss to the opposite party. Claim lodged with opposite party. Opposite party had appointed surveyor. Claim was also submitted to the Oriental Insurance Company. The complainant had approached grievance cell and the cell has not responded in any manner. Thereafter, complainant complained to the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority on 08.07.2007 since the opposite party had failed to settle the claim. The Oriental Insurance Company had settled the claim and paid Rs. 3,18,824/-. But the opposite party company has not settled the claim. Opposite party company even not cared to settle the claim. The Regional Manager of opposite party company informed the complainant that files were not traceable. The opposite party company appointed another surveyor Balasubramanyam, KNB Surveyor who had done the survey for Oriental Insurance Company. Legal notice issued to opposite party calling upon them to settle the claim. The opposite party asked the complainant to receive Rs. 1,02,270/- towards full and final settlement without furnishing survey report. The complainant got issued reply on 31.08.2009. Opposite party company written one more letter to complainant on 24.12.2009 along with survey report and requested complainant to submitted duly discharged voucher for sum of Rs. 1,02,270/-. Complainant being not satisfied got issued again legal notice and it has made clear that complainant is not going to accept the same and called upon the opposite party to pay legitimate claim with interest. Oriental Insurance Company has paid sum of Rs. 3,18,824/- being their share. As per the survey report loss of stock and furniture assessed is Rs. 6,35,028/-. The opposite party is liable to pay Rs. 3,19,204/-. The complainant prayed that opposite party be directed to pay Rs.3,19,204/- with interest and compensation.<br /> 2. Opposite party filed defence version stating that it is true that Complainant is carrying on business dealing in electronic items. It is also true that complainant has obtained policy from opposite party covering stock to the extent of Rs. 8 lakhs and furniture and fixtures to the extent of Rs. 5.59 lakhs. It is also true that complainant had obtained another policy from Oriental Insurance Company covering stock of Rs. 17 lakhs. It is true that fire broke out on 14.03.2005. It is also true that petitioner has approached the grievance cell and IRDA. The opposite party had appointed KBN surveyors to submit the report. Opposite party had offered Rs. 1,02,270/- and requested the complainant to send duly discharged voucher. The Oriental Insurance Company has already paid Rs. 3,18,824/- as their share. The complainant cannot dispute the assessment made by the KNB Surveyors. There is no deficiency in service.<br /> 3. Respective parties have filed affidavit evidence and documents.<br /> 4. Arguments are heard.<br /> 5. The points for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved that opposite party has committed deficiency in service?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitle for the claim amount?<br /> 3. Whether the complainant is entitle for the compensation for deficiency of service?<br /> REASONS<br /> 6. Almost all facts are admitted. It is also admitted case that complainant had obtained Fire and Special Peril Insurance Policy from opposite party company and also from Oriental Insurance Company. It is also admitted by the parties that on 14.03.2005 fire broke out at complainant’s showroom. The complainant put up the claim before the Oriental Insurance Company and also with the opposite party company. The Oriental Insurance Company has settled the claim for Rs. 3,18,824/- and paid the said amount towards their share. The opposite party company offered Rs. 1,02,270/- and requested the complainant to send duly discharged voucher. The complainant refused to accept the cheque on the ground that the amount settled by the opposite party company is far less than the surveyor’s assessment of loss. It is admitted case of the opposite party that he had appointed KNB Surveyor Pvt. Ltd. for assessment of loss and surveyor has submitted the report. The Oriental Insurance Company had also appointed KBN Surveyor Pvt. Ltd. for assessment of loss and same surveyor had assessed loss at Rs. 4,74,388/- towards stocks and Rs. 1,80,640/- towards furniture 100% loss. The total loss assessed by the surveyor is Rs. 6,55,028/-. The KNB surveyor has clearly mentioned in detail the loss assessed by him and he submitted the report. The total loss assessed is Rs. 6,55,028/- both towards stock and furniture. The amount insured towards stock is Rs. 8 lakhs and towards furniture is Rs. 5.59 lakhs by the opposite party company. The policy was also obtained from the Oriental Insurance company. The policy covered Rs. 17 lakhs for stocks and Rs. 0.20 lakhs for furniture. The Oriental Insurance Company had paid Rs. 3,18,824/- to the complainant towards their share and the complainant had accepted Rs. 3,18,630/-. The complainant claims that the balance amount of Rs. 3,19,204/- shall have to be paid by the opposite party company. Surveyor has been appointed by the opposite party company itself. Therefore, absolutely there is no reason / dispute whatsoever that the surveyor appointed by the company itself has assessed loss to the tune of Rs. 6,35,008/-. Two companies shall have to share burden. The Oriental Insurance Company has rightly paid 50% of the loss and the remaining 50% loss assessed by the surveyor himself shall have to be paid by the New India Assurance Company. The surveyor had made revised assessment of loss at Rs. 4,21,290/- and after deducting the amount paid by Oriental Insurance company Rs. 3,18,824/-. The amount payable by the New India Assurance Company is shown as Rs.1,45,342/-. There is absolutely no basis to revise the assessment of loss. Admittedly, the KNB surveyor made revise assessment on 06.07.2009 long after incident whereas KNB surveyor himself has assessed the loss when appointed by the Oriental Insurance Company after the incident and in the original assessment loss shown by the KNB surveyor himself to the tune of Rs. 6,55,028/- how can the surveyor revise the assessment without any basis and evidence or any proof. Therefore, the revised assessment shown by the surveyor in his report is absolutely baseless, not evidensary and not accepted in the eye of law. Therefore, taking into consideration of all facts and circumstances and survey report it is the duty and obligation of opposite party company to pay Rs. 3,19,204/- to the complainant. The opposite party company has failed to settle the claim promptly and it had taken considerable time. Inordinate delay had been caused in settling the claim. Therefore, it definitely amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant is definitely entitled for the claim amount of Rs. 3,19,204/- from the opposite party company. The complainant has prayed grant of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental agony etc. There is no proper proof or evidence as to how the complainant has suffered mental agony. Therefore, it is not a fit case to grant compensation for mental agony. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> 7. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 3,19,204/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the order the above amount carries interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order till payment / realisation.<br /> 8. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the present proceedings.<br /> 9. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 10. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br />