Mr.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       Sh.Pawan Beri has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant availed housing loan from Opposite Party No.3 and after that, he purchased one house bearing No.3722/9 Gali Nakadan, Kt.Sufaid, Amritsar and also got insured the said house from Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 vide cover Note No.CHD-C/530672 on 25.3.2010 for a sum assured of Rs.5 lacs and the premium  of the same is to the tune of Rs.2063/- and the commencement of which insurance was from 25.3.2010 and expiry date of the said insurance is uptil 24.3.2010. It is worth while to mention over here that the said insurance was also covered under natural disaster also. Unfortunately, on 26.10.2015 earth quake came about 2.45 PM with Reactor Scale speed 7.3, due to which floor of the house sink down about 2 ½ floor of the said insured house of the complainant got weak with several cracks over the walls and roof and house is in dilapidated condition as such it may fall  any time. Thereafter,  this matter was immediately informed to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and they appointed surveyor in this regard, but since the said surveyor was connived with Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and was their own employee and as such, the said surveyor denied the claim for the best reasons known to them. Thereafter, the complainant availed the services of private consultants C-Engineer Regd.Planner, Valuer, Supervisor, Opposite Bharawan Da Dhaba, Amritsar and  said surveyor visited the house of the complainant and prepared report and assessed the loss occurred to the insured  house of complainant to the tune of Rs.308,883.75 vide its report dated 8.12.2015. Thereafter, the complainant made so many visits to the Opposite Parties  to pass the claim  to the loss occurred to the house of the complainant, but all the requests of the complainant fell deaf ears and thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint before this Forum and after appearing before this Forum, the Opposite Parties requested for the time of two months to decide the claim of the complainant on merits and as such,  the Forum gave the time of two months to decide the claim on merits and on the basis of statement given by the counsel for the Opposite Parties, the complainant withdraw the said complaint with liberty to file the fresh complaint at appropriate stage. After withdrawal of the said complaint, the complainant submitted duly filled claim form before Opposite Party No.2 alongwith all the necessary documents and Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 vide letter dated 21.7.2016 decided the claim of the complainant for Rs.28,000/- only, but Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 did not disclose that on what basis they have decided the claim of the complainant for amounting to Rs.28,000/- only. The detail has not been given by the Opposite Parties  nor the calculation has been given to the complainant describing that on what basis Rs.28,000/- has been assessed for the loss. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       To direct the Opposite Parties to make the payment of the claim to the complainant to the tune of Rs.3,08,883.75 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of entitlement till its realization.

b)      To direct the Opposite Parties  to pass and made payment of claim of the house of the complainant.

c)       The Opposite Parties  may please be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental harassment, agony etc. to the complainant.

d)      To direct the Opposite Parties  to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses.

e)       Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled may also be granted in his favour.     

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable being as premature one. In the present case, the claim in question has never been repudiated or disallowed by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. Rather the claim of the complainant was approved by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 for an amount of Rs.28,000/- before the filing of the present complaint. In fact, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 is still ready and willing to pay the said approved amount of Rs.28,000/- to the complainant subject to completion of requisite formalities. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 has intimated the complainant vide latter dated 21.7.2016 that  his claim has been approved for Rs.28,000/- by the competent authority and was asked to submit the Discharge Voucher and cancelled cheque for release of the approved amount. However, the complainant neither complied with the formalities nor replied to the said  letter mentioned above.  Hence the complainant is not entitled to get the claim in question. As per the report of M/s.V.K.Mehta, Surveyor & Loss Assessor Private Ltd, the payable liability of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 was assessed as Rs.28,000/-. In this regard, it is submitted that loss assessed by the surveyor is the best piece of evidence and same has to be taken as correct one unless the other party produces any cogent evidence to show that the said loss assessed by the surveyor is incorrect, hence the loss assessed by the surveyor is to be taken as final one and on account of the claim  being already settled on merits for Rs.28,000/- as mentioned above, there is no question of any delay or deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. Hence the relief of damages, interest and costs in the present complaint is not payable. On merits, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 took almost same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections.              Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       Opposite Party No.3 appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that answering Opposite Party has nothing to do with this complaint as no cause of action has been accrued to the complainant as against Opposite Party No.3, nor any relief has been claimed against Opposite Party No.3 in view of the perusal of the present complaint, thus the present complaint against Opposite Party No.3 is liable to be dismissed at very threshold.  Moreover, if there is any insurance, same matter is between complainant and insurance company & replying Opposite Party has got no concern in these matter between the complainant and insurance company. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

4.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2   to Ex.C6  and closed his evidence.

5.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Ravi Gupta, Assistant Manager Ex.Op1,2/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1,2/2 to Ex.Op1,2/7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. Similarly, Opposite Party No.3 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.A.S.Maurya, Chief Manager Ex.OP3/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.3.

6.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

7.       The complainant has submitted his affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has reiterated the facts as detailed in the complaint and averred that he availed housing loan from Opposite Party No.3 and after that, he purchased one house bearing No.3722/9 Gali Nakadan, Kt.Sufaid, Amritsar and also got insured the said house from Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 vide cover Note No.CHD-C/530672 on 25.3.2010 for a sum assured of Rs.5 lacs and the premium  of the same is to the tune of Rs.2063/- and the commencement of which insurance was from 25.3.2010 and expiry date of the said insurance is uptil 24.3.2010. It is worth while to mention over here that the said insurance was also covered under natural disaster also. Unfortunately, on 26.10.2015 earth quake came about 2.45 PM with Reactor Scale speed 7.3, due to which floor of the house sink down about 2 ½ floor of the said insured house of the complainant got weak with several cracks over the walls ad roof and house is in dilapidated condition as such it may fall  any time. Thereafter,  this matter was immediately informed to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and they appointed surveyor in this regard, but since the said surveyor was connived with Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and was their own employee and as such, the said surveyor denied the claim for the best reasons known to them. Thereafter, the complainant availed the services of private consultants C-Engineer Regd.Planner, Valuer, Supervisor, Opposite Bharawan Da Dhaba, Amritsar and  said surveyor visited the house of the complainant and prepared report and assessed the loss occurred to the insured  house of complainant to the tune of Rs.308,883.75 vide its report dated 8.12.2015. Thereafter, the complainant made so many visits to the Opposite Parties  to pass the claim  to the loss occurred to the house of the complainant, but all the requests of the complainant fell deaf ears and thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint before this Forum and after appearing before this Forum, the Opposite Parties requested for the time of two months to decide the claim of the complainant on merits and as such,  the Forum gave the time of two months to decide the claim on merits and on the basis of statement given by  the counsel for the Opposite Parties , the complainant withdraw the said complaint with liberty to file the fresh complaint at appropriate stage. After withdrawal of the said complaint, the complainant submitted duly filled claim form before Opposite Party No.2 alongwith all the necessary documents and Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 vide letter dated 21.7.2016 decided the claim of the complainant for Rs.28,000/- only, but Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 did not disclose that on what basis they have decided the claim of the complainant for amounting to Rs.28,000/- only. The detail has not been given by the Opposite Parties  nor the calculation has been given to the complainant describing that on what basis Rs.28,000/- has been assessed for the loss.

8.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that the claim of the complainant was approved by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 for an amount of Rs.28,000/- before the filing of the present complaint. In fact, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 is still ready and willing to pay the said approved amount of Rs.28,000/- to the complainant subject to completion of requisite formalities. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 has intimated the complainant vide latter dated 21.7.2016 that  his claim has been approved for Rs.28,000/- by the competent authority and was asked to submit the Discharge Voucher and cancelled cheque for release of the approved amount. However, the complainant neither complied with the formalities nor replied to the said  letter mentioned above.  Hence the complainant is not entitled to get the claim in question. As per the report of M/s.V.K.Mehta, Surveyor & Loss Assessor Private Ltd, the payable liability of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 was assessed as Rs.28,000/-. In this regard, it is submitted that loss assessed by the surveyor is the best piece of evidence and same has to be taken as correct one unless the other party produces any cogent evidence to show that the said loss assessed by the surveyor is incorrect, hence the loss assessed by the surveyor is to be taken as final one and on account of the claim  being already settled on merits for Rs.28,000/- as mentioned above, there is no question of any delay or deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. Hence the relief of damages, interest and costs in the present complaint is not payable. To rebut the report of M/s.V.K.Mehta, Surveyor & Loss Assessor Private Ltd who approved a meagre amount of Rs.28,000/-, the complainant has produced Sh.Gorakh Nath Arora son of Pishori Lal, Consulting Civil Engineer, R/O 16, Hargobind Avenue, Majitha Road, Amritsar and he made statement before this Forum that he is registered planner, valuer and supervisor. On 8.12.2015, he had prepared the report regarding the repair and renovation of house No. 3722/9 situated at Kucha Nakada, katra Sufaid, Amritsar belong to Saloni Beri wife of Pawan Beri and Pawan Beri and he inspected the total  building and after inspecting the same thoroughly, he prepared the estimate report to the tune of Rs.308883.75 paisa  and in this regard, he submitted his report in the court file as Ex.C3. The aforesaid report Ex.C3 as well as statement given by  aforesaid statement, Sh.Gorakh Nath Arora son of Pishori Lal, Consulting Civil Engineer, R/O 16, Hargobind Avenue, Majitha Road, Amritsar has no where rebutted or challenged by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 by filing counter affidavit of any engineer of the field.  Moreover,  Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 did not disclose that on what basis they have decided the claim of the complainant for amounting to Rs.28,000/- only. The detail has not been given by the Opposite Parties  nor the calculation has been given to the complainant describing that on what basis Rs.28,000/- has been assessed for the loss. Hence, such type of the report  by assessing loss to the building of a meager amount is not tenable.

9.       Although the complainant has made a claim for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.3,08,883.75 paisa, but he has not given any detail nor any documentary proof to prove the actual loss occasioned to him on account of deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, but this Forum is competent to indulge in guess working and further use its experience to assess the actual loss suffered by the complainant. The complainant is entitled to such compensation  only to make good the actual loss suffered by him and no exorbitant or  fanciful amount can be awarded as compensation.

10.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and loss occasioned by the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, the complainant is entitled to grant of claim to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- from the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2  while a sum of Rs.5,000/- is imposed upon the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 on account of litigation expenses and the complaint stands disposed of accordingly. However, complaint against Opposite Party No.3 stands dismissed. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order; failing which, awarded amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a from the date of passing of order until full and final recovery. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum