The titled vendor-firm has filed the present complaint through its proprietor Sunil Mahajan against the titled opposite parties aggrieved at their arbitrary resolve/partial-settlement of its fire-loss insurance-claim pertaining to the comprehensively insured/PNB hypothecated electronics goods sans assignment of any logic/reason and in an utter violation of the terms of the related insurance policy; praying for issuance of appropriate directives to re-settle the impugned fire-claim @ its full and pay the balance amount of Rs.16,95,010/- with interest @ 9% P.A., besides to pay two sums of Rs.50,000/- one each for harassment cum mental pain and other to cover the cost of litigation, in the interest of justice.

2.        The complainant firm has been engaged in local sales of branded and other electronics goods and have been availing of Rs.15 Lac as cash credit limit from the local branch of the OP3 PNB Bank against hypothecation of fully paid for stocks.

3.        In compliance to the terms of the OP3 Bank sanction, the complainant firm had also purchased shop-keeper insurance policy Ex.C2 covering the hypothecated stocks of electronics goods. However, on 02.06.2017 the insured suffered fire-losses that were duly intimated to the OP2 insurers who deputed Surveyor Rajiv Arora to conduct the preliminary as well as final survey to assess the loss for settlement of the related claim. The surveyor had requisitioned certain documents on 18.05.2018 those were duly procured and delivered on 09.06.2018. Police DDR and Fire Brigade Report were also procured and submitted to the surveyor along with other Bank papers such as Stock Statement Ex.C3 Inventory and Shop's Stock Register Ex.C4 etc.  However, the OP insurers had settled the insurance-claim in an arbitrary manner as:

1.        Only Samsung Brand goods were accounted for settlement of fire-claim;

2.        All other brand goods were not accounted for settlement of fire-claim;

3.        Further, 7 nos of Samsung LED for Rs.1,68,166/- were not accounted for

The final settlement Report Ex.C5 and the Discharge voucher Ex.C6 signed by the complainant but under coercion and not with free consent. Partial payment Ex.C7 as paid through NEFT on 31.07.2018 was received by the complainant under protest. The fire damaged goods were 231 in number whereas the OP had considered/accounted for only 170 items in settling the claim. The complainant has filed his self attested deposition seeking the above prayed reliefs in the interest of justice.    

4.        The OP insurers upon summoning appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply stating therein the preliminary as well as other (on merits) objections as: i) That, the present complaint is not maintainable against them as they had already paid the entire amount of the claim as assessed by the surveyor and the complainant had not raised any protest; ii) That, the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and had concealed the true and material facts from the forum. On merits, the OP insurers have not disputed the contents of paragraphs 1 to 3 of the complaint. In response to paragraph 4, the OP insurers say that the surveyor has been an IRDA approved independent person and has correctly assessed the fire-losses caused to the firm's stock of electronic goods; and he needs to have been impleaded in the adjudicatory proceedings. The OP have paid the claim in full in terms of the surveyor's assessment of loss as stood evidenced by i) Ex.OP1– copy of the approval letter dated 18.05.2018; ii) Ex.OP2-copy of the claim-voucher; iii) Ex.OP3 – copy of the agreement dated 09.12.2016. The contents of paragraphs 5 to 8 have been again denied whereas the paragraph 9 has been addressed as matter of records and the no. 10 as legal. Lastly, the OP insurers have filed the self-attested (Ex.OP1/A) affidavit of their Divisional Manager Harbans Lal and closed the evidence praying for dismissal of the complaint in the interest of justice.

5.       Similarly, the OP3 Bank was summoned but they preferred to stay absent and were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte on 18.06.2019 and going by the judicial precedent it may be presumed that they had no defense to prosecute and we also observe that even no relief stood prayed against the OP Bank

6.       We have carefully examined the documents/evidence produced on record (along with the scale and scope of ‘adverse inference’ for those ignored to be produced) in order to determine the respective ‘claims’ as pleaded forth by the opposing litigants in the light of the arguments as advanced by their respective learned counsels representing their respective sides. We observe that the OP insurers have neither produced the Insurance-claim nor the Surveyors' report nor the supporting affidavit of the Surveyor and have arbitrarily settled the claim @ an arbitrary amount of Rs.6,42,200/- whereas the complainant has duly evidenced the fire-loss @ Rs.23,37,238/- vide the monthly inventory/stock-statement submitted to the Bank for determination of the drawing power in their cash credit account and also vide the shop stock register maintained on regular basis. Further, we observe that the OP insurers had issued the related policy to cover the stocks-in-trade up to an amount of Rs.25 Lac against risks of fire and special perils having collected a gross premium of Rs.8,304/- and thus we hold them liable to pay the balance amount of the fire-loss claimed @ an amount of Rs.23,37,238/-.

7.        Interestingly, the OP insurers have not produced any cogent evidence in support of its pleadings and in absence of the same these are just bald statements. We also observe that the OP insurers have neither filed the requisite affidavits of its Surveyor cum Loss Assessor and nor of any of its investigators and in absence of these the related reports stay back as inadmissible in the proceedings.   

8.        In light of the above findings as manifested during the present proceedings and in the absence of direct rebuttal of the complainant firm's assessed fire-loss @ Rs.23,37,238/- we partly allow the present claim and thus ORDER the opposite parties to pay the fire-claim @ its filed amount, in full, along with interest @ 6% PA w e from the date of filing of the complaint till paid in totality besides to pay the lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation and compensation within 45 (forty-five days) of the receipt of certified copy of these orders otherwise the aggregate amount shall attract an additional interest @ 3% PA with effect from the date of orders till actual payment.                                                   

9.         The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

10.      Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record. 

                                                          (Naveen Puri)

                                                                 President.

ANNOUNCED:                                 (R.S.Sukhija)

SEPT. 08, 2022.                                           Member.

YP.