Rajasthan

StateCommission

CC/29/2017

M/s Compucom Software Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurnce Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Inderjeet Choudhary

26 Feb 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

COMPLAINT CASE NO: 29/2017

 

M/s.Compucom Software Ltd., regd.office IT, 14-15 EPIP RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur.

Vs.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office at DO-4, Shopping Center, Ambabari, Jaipur

 

Date of Order 26.2.2019

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Meena Mehta-Member

 

Mr. Rajesh Mootha counsel for the complainant

Mr.Sanjeev Arora with Mr.Shubham Arora counsel for the non-applicant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

2

 

This complaint has been filed on 2.3.2017 with the contention that the complainant is a public limited company. He owned a property in Flat No. 14 on 3^rd floor premises known as Stephens Court situated at 18-A, Park Street, Kolkata. A standard fire and special perils and burglary policy was purchased by the complainant which covers loss to building, furniture fittings etc. On 23.3.2010 a sudden fire took place in the premises which caused heavy loss to the property. Claim was submitted, surveyor was appointed who assessed the loss inspite of this claim has not been paid to the complainant. The complainant suffered loss of Rs. 31 lakhs alongwith interest and same has been asked.

 

Per contra the submission of the non-applicant was that on 16.2.2017 a registered post was sent to the complainant which was not answered and relevant documents have not been submitted. Hence, the non-applicants are not deficient. Insured premises has not been identified, purchase bills, original lease deed, approved layout plan etc. has not been submitted. The survey report cannot be relied upon as he has not assessed the loss fairly and the claim should have been dismissed.

 

3

 

Both the parties entered into evidence. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

 

Policy has been submitted which includes the risk to the building, stock, furniture, fixtures, fitting etc. The contention of the non-applicant is that furniture, fittings and fixtures are not included in the policy but the policy certificate wash out the above contention of the non-applicant.

 

The other contention of the non-applicant is that insured premises is not identified in policy. The address is mentioned as 18 A, Park Street, Kolkata and it is not clear that whether complete building is insured or only a part of it and there is a contradiction about 3^rd floor and 4^th floor but the surveyor has inspected the impugned property and it is more than clear that location of risk is 18 A, Park Street, Kolkata. The property of the complainant is on 3^rd floor and same has also been inspected by the surveyor.

 

The non-applicant has issued the communication Anx.

 

 

4

 

R 1 dated 16.2.2017 and asked for the address of the insured premises and the purpose of use of the building whether this is used for residential purpose or commercial purpose. This seems the malafide intention of the complainant as the property has already been identified by the surveyor and there was no occasion for the query about residential or commercial purpose. Even query regarding payment of municipal tax is raised which was not needed for the consideration of the claim. The original lease deed was submitted to the surveyor hence, asking for the same again shows the malafides of the non-applicant.The surveyor report clearly shows that original lease deed as well as sub-lease were submitted.

 

The other contention of the non-applicant is that as per lease agreement the covered area of the flat was 3179 sq.ft. whereas the surveyor has assessed the loss calculating the area as 4650 sq.ft. and communication Ex. R 13 dated 13.12.2016 was sent to the surveyor which was rightly been answered by the surveyor vide Anx. R 14 and it has been made clear that covered area also includes mezzanine floor which comes to 3560 sq.ft.and as per para 3.14 (a) the total covered area is taken only 3179 sq.ft.as per agreement.

 

5

 

The other contention of the non-applicant is that furniture and other ites were intact as per the photographs taken by the surveyor inspite of this loss has been assessed for the same. The surveyor has categorically answered the query vide Anx. R 14 that furniture and other items were showing intact but they were completely damaged due to smoke and water during fire fighting and further it has been made clear that building is still lying in “as is where is” condition which could be seen by the non-applicant.

 

The complainant has rightly pointed out Ex. 11 where Municipal Corporation Kolkata has given permission for repair of the building and the complainant has rightly pointed out that till today repairing work has not been completed.

 

The other contention of the non-applicant is that for the building Stephen's Court Welfare Association is working and as per Anx. 19 the complainant has paid only Rs. 6.35 lakhs to repair the building hence, the loss assessed by the surveyor is on higher side. The complainant has rightly pointed out that

 

6

 

 

Rs. 6.35 lakhs has been paid only for repair and restoration work of outer damaged part of the building. Hence, in view of the above, it can very well be concluded that non-applicants are deficient inspite of the loss assessment by the surveyor the claim has not been allowed reasons best known to the non-applicants. Hence, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs. 18,99,477/- as assessed by the surveyor.

 

The contention of the complainant is that he has assessed the loss at Rs. 31 lakhs but no basis for the same has been submitted. A quotation of Rs. 52,86,804/- Anx. 13 is submitted but the assessment is ex-parte/unilateral and even it had not contained the area of the premises and it has been undertaken in 2016 whereas admittedly the loss has been suffered in 2010 and in view of the surveyor report the complainant is entitled only for the amount of loss which has been assessed by the surveyor i.e. Rs. 18,99,477/-.

 

In view of the above, the complaint is allowed and the complainant is entitled to get Rs.18,99,477/- alongwith 9%

 

7

 

interest from 23.3.2010 date of loss. The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.25,000/- as cost of proceedings. Order be complied within one month.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

nm