Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/674/2014

Krishan Kumar Kashyap - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rajesh Pal Adv.

29 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/674/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	10/10/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	29/08/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Krishan Kumar Kashyap S/o Late Sh. Hiru Ram C/o Floriculture Project, Village Chamba, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, residing at House No.148, Sector 6, Panchkula.

 

…........... Complainant.

Vs

 

[1]  The Oriental Insurance Company Limited having its Office at Service Centre: Regional Officer, Chandigarh, SCO 109-111, Surendra Building, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh, through its Manager/ Branch Manager.

 

[2]  Pukhraj Singh, Surveyor, Protech Engineers & Loss Assessors, SCF 40, Phase 9, Mohali.

 

…........... Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   DR. MANJIT SINGH             PRESIDENT

          SMT.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Rajesh Pal, Advocate.
For Opposite Party No.1	:	Sh. Sukaam Gupta, Advocate.
For Opposite Party No.2	:	Sh. Pukhraj Singh, Opposite Party No.2 in person (Opposite Party No.2 already ex-parte)

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          Succinctly put, the Complainant, who is a small time farmer, raised Green Poly Houses at his agricultural land for the purpose of growing carnation flowers and got the same insurance from Opposite Party No.1 vide Policy Annexure C-1 valid from 24.12.2012 to 23.12.2013 for a sum insured of Rs.30 lacs by paying a premium of Rs.4905/-. Unfortunately, due to heavy rains during June 2013 in Himachal Pradesh, the Green House at Sr.No.1, 2, 18 and 8 was destroyed fully, whereafter pursuant to necessary intimation, a claim form along with all the requisite documents was submitted with the Opposite Party No.1, who appointed Opposite Party No.2 to assess the loss. The Complainant as per the demand also provided the estimated loss of Rs.11,17,325/- qua Green House No.1, 2, 8 and 18 by M/s Green Tunnel of Shimla. It has been alleged that despite providing all the necessary documentation, the Opposite Parties passed a claim of paltry sum of Rs.46,026/- only instead of Rs.11,17,325/- without showing any reasons. Thereafter, the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties for redressal of his grievance, but to no avail. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the present Complaint.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, therefore, he was proceeded against exparte on 26.11.2014.

 

3.      Opposite Party No.1 in its reply, while admitting the factual aspects of the case, has pleaded that after receiving intimation regarding the loss, Opposite Party No.2 (Sh. Pukhraj Singh) was deputed to assess the loss, who after spot survey found that out of the total green houses, damage was caused to only four green houses i.e. Green House No.1, 2, 8 and 18. Hence after considering the terms and conditions of the insurance policy the said Surveyor (Opposite Party No.2) assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,12,584/- and after applying necessary deductions, claim was recommended for Rs.46,063/-. Necessary intimation to this effect was also given to the Complainant with a direction to supply some necessary documents enabling the answering Opposite Party to release the assessed amount, but the Complainant himself remained silent and never supplied the same. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      The Complainant also filed rejoinder wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Party No.1 have been controverted.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the learned counsel parties and have also perused the record.

 

7.      The case of the Complainant is that the claim preferred by him was not paid by the Opposite Parties to him due to storm damage of Green House No.1, 2, 8 and 18 which was insured. We find that newspaper clippings provided by the insured is pertaining to Daulatpur Chowk which is more than 100 Kms. away from the affected position of the Complainant. Hence, the said weather report i.e. rainfall and wind velocity etc. cannot be relied upon. We have also perused the letter of Patwari dated 1.7.2013 regarding damage to the Green House due to heavy thunder storm and rain. As per this letter, approx. an area of 1195 sq. mtrs. are damaged but pipes fitted in Green house No.1, 2, 18 and 8 have damaged fully. We have also perused the survey report of damage to Poly Structure dated 17.02.2014. As per the report, there has been loss to G.I Pipes and Poly Sheets which works out to Rs.212,584.06P. The depreciation carried by the Surveyor does not appear to be in order. The report of the Surveyor can be accepted to the extent the Surveyor has reported the damage, but the depreciation part of the report cannot be accepted, as when the green sheds were insured, at that time the market value of the Green Houses were assessed by the Insurer Company, and the premium on the basis of the same was charged. As per Annexure C-1 the insurance period starts from 24.12.2012 for Rs.30.00 lacs. The depreciation period will start from 24.12.2012 which is date of insurance. The damage took place on 29.06.2013. Hence the depreciation period will be counted approx. six months. As the depreciation for the Poly Sheets is 33% per year, the depreciation for the six months period will be 16.5%. For the metallic items depreciation is 10% per year. Hence for the period of six months the depreciation will be 5%. Therefore, the total assessment for the G.I Pipes works out to be 1,07,101/- i.e. Rs.1,28,264.86P minus 16.5% (depreciation). Similarly, the total assessment of the Poly Sheets works out to be Rs.80,103/- i.e. Rs.84,319.20P minus 5% (depreciation). Hence the total gross loss works out to be Rs.1,87,204/- which the Opposite Party No.1 is liable to pay to the Complainant.      

 

8.      For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.1, and the same is allowed. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed:-

 

[a]  To pay the claim of Rs.1,87,204/-to the Complainant

 

[b]  Pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[c] Pay Rs.7,500/- towards costs of litigation;

 

          The complaint against Opposite Party No.2 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

9.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.1; thereafter, Opposite Party No.1 shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-paras [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this Complaint, till it is paid, apart from costs of litigation as mentioned in sub-para [c] above. 

 

10.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

29^th August,2016                                           

Sd/-

(DR.MANJIT SINGH)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

   MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

 

 “Dutt”