BEOFRE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 440 of 2013
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 30.09.2013
DATE OF ORDER: - 08.07.2016
M/s Girdhari Lal Brij Mohan Kath Mandi, Charkhi Dadri through its Proprietor Prakash Chand Karta of HUF.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- Branch Manager/Managing Officer, United India Insurance Company Limited, Red Cross Bhawan, Mini Zoo Road, Bhiwani.
- Regional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, 18, Sirsa Road, Near Gurunanak Public School, Hissar.
- Managing Director, Managing Officer, United India Insurance Company Limited, 24, Whites Road, Chennai, TamilNadu.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE :- Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member
Mrs. Sudesh Dhillon, Member
Present:- Shri Manjeet Chahar, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Rajbir Singh, Advocate for OPs.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
Brief facts of the present case are that the complainant in order to secure its stock and shop from dangers of fire and allied perils, burglary and house breakings etc. and different liabilities like public liabilities opted for a comprehensive shopkeeper’s insurance policy from the respondent company, through branch office at Bhiwani, vide policy no. 111202/48/10/34/00000618 covering period from 03.11.2010 to midnight of 02.11.2011 against a premium of Rs. 5988/-. It is alleged that the insurance policy cover was for section 1B fire and allied perils which includes items description as on stock of all kinds of hardware sanitary fitting, cement pipes etc. sum assured for this section Rs. 15,00,000/-, section 3A money insurance (in transit) sum assured 1,00,000/- and public liability for which sum assured was assessed at Rs. 75,000/-. The complainant continued to renew his policy cover and the relevant policy was purchases vide policy no. 111202/48/10/34/00000892 covering period from 28.01.2011 to midnight of 27.01.2012 against a premium amount of Rs. 4155/-. It is alleged that the relevant policy also covers all stock including furniture, fixtures, fittings and stock of trade under Section 1B and sum assured for the purpose of section 1B at Rs. 10,00,000/- It is alleged that the complainant kept on paying continued renewable premium to the Ops. On dated 30.09.2011 in evening, as a routine, the shop was closed after the day’s business and in the early hours of next morning on dated 0110.2011 the neighbours of the shop informed the complainant that a major fire has been broken out in the closed shop premises of the complainant and caused vast damage. The complainant was shocked to see that this unhappy incident was caused a big loss of Rs. 2225708.63. The complainant immediately informed the fire services in the city, police and also intimated to Ops about this incident and registered a DDR bearing no. 34 dated 01.10.2011. Later on the complainant filed for claim with the Ops alongwith requisite documents. It is alleged that at the time of signing of policy documents the complainant was given full assurance by authorized agent that in case of fire, policy covers all stock in trade including furniture, fixture from fire & allies perils and thus the Ops are bound to sanction the insured amount to the complainant but the Ops have failed to do so. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties, he had to suffer mental agony, physical torture and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such he had to file the present complaint.
2. Opposite parties on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the respondent company deputed an independent surveyor for conducting survey and assessment of loss caused to the complainant in the fire accident. It is submitted that the Surveyor and Loss Assessor deputed by the respondent company visited the spot immediately after the receipt of instructions from the insurance company and took the photographers. It is submitted that the complainant failed to supply all information despite the expiry of a period of two months, the Surveyor and Loss Assessor submitted his report on the basis of documents supplied by the complainant which is dated 28.12.2011. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has placed on record Mark C-1 and documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-23.
4. In reply thereto, the counsel for Ops placed on record Annexure R1 to Annexure R-19 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6 Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant made a claim of Rs. 2225708/- for the loss occurred in the shop due to the fire incident to the OP. The Os against the said claim of the complainant, on the basis of the surveyors report finalized the claim of Rs. 275902/- only as full and final settlement of the claim of the complainant. The said claim has been paid by the OP to the complainant. The said amount of compensation paid by the OP is unjustified because the OP is liable to pay the claim of Rs. 2225708/- to the complainant. In support of his contention he referred the documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-23.
7. Learned counsel for the Ops reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the surveyor vide his report dated 28.12.2011 Annexure R-1 assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 275902/-. The OP has paid the said amount of Rs. 275902 as assessed by the surveyor, has paid to the complainant as full and final settlement of his claim and now no amount is payable to the complainant. In support of his contention he referred the documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-19.
8. In the context of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on the record. The complainant has referred the statement of stock dated 31.08.2011 Annexure C-16 submitted by him to the State Bank of Patiala, the statement of his loan account from State Bank of India Annexure C-17 to Annexure C-18 and the letter of the complainant sent by the complainant to the surveyor of the OP Annexure C19 to Annexure C-21. On the other side, the counsel for the OP has referred the report of surveyor Annexure R-1. The surveyor in his report under the head of ‘stock of paints’ has assessed the loss at Rs. 204538/- and has deducted the salvage value at the rate of 35 per cent on lumpsum basis and thus the net loss comes to Rs. 132950/-. Similarly under the head of other stocks the surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs. 288505/- and has deducted the salvage value at the rate of 45 per cent on lumpsum basis and assessed the net loss at Rs. 158678/-. Where the claim made by the insured is of huge amount then the loss is to be assessed by 2 surveyors independently to arrive at just and proper conclusion of the loss. In this case, no other report of the surveyor has been produced by the OP. The surveyor has not given any reason to deduct the salvage value at the rate of 35% to 45% under the heads stock of paints and other stocks, respectively. In the absence of proper justification by the surveyor in his report regarding deduction of salvage value at the higher percentage seems illegal and arbitrary. We are of the view in view of the nature of the material, the salvage value should not be more than 10 per cent for the stocks of paints and 15 per cent for other stocks. Taking into account every aspect of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and deduct the salvage value at the rate of 10 per cent for stock of paints and 15 per cent for other stocks and calculate the amount of loss. The said amount of loss shall be payable by the OP to the complainant within 60 days from the date of passing of this order. If the OP fails to comply with the order within the stipulated time, then the OP shall be liable to pay the interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum on the amount of award to the complainant till the date of payment. Certified copies of the order be sent to both the parties, free of costs and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 08.07.2016. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta), (Sudesh Dhillon),
Member. Member.
