NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SHAKTI FILLING STATION
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Shakti Filling Station
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of District Forum, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh passed in Consumer Complaint No.6/2008, dated 04.03.2010, whereby the complaint of the respondent was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs.5,06,061/ - minus Rs.3,08,699/ - = Rs.1,97,362/ - with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the balance amount from the date of filing of complaint, i.e. 14.12.2007 till realization besides cost of complaint, which was assessed at Rs.2,000/ -.
(2.) THE factual matrix of the case in brief is that the respondent is running a business of petroleum products in the name and style of M/s Shakti Filling Station. It got insured its retail outlet through the appellant Insurance Company and obtained policy No.352404/11/06/11/00000704 valid for the period from 08.03.2007 to 07.03.2008 for a sum of Rs.32,00,000/ -. On 14.03.2007 due to heavy rains in the area, there was a huge land slide, as a result of which a great loss to the retail outlet including damage to the shed with facia (i.e. Kenopy) to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/ - was caused besides other losses to the machinery. Thereafter the matter was reported to the respondent who initially got conducted preliminary survey and thereafter appointed Loss Assessor -cum -Surveyor to assess the loss, who submitted his report Annexure R -2. But the said report was not acceptable to the respondent since as per it, it is arbitrary and made request for appointment of another Surveyor to assess the loss as the loss assessed by the Surveyor was much on lower side, whereas the respondent had spent more than Rs.7,50,000/ - to repair the said Kenopy to bring it in its original position. But since the appellant had not considered the request of the respondent for appointment of another Surveyor to assess the loss again and as the attitude of the appellant was not cooperative and as such there was a deficiency of service on the part of the appellant. In this background complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed for deficiency of service.
(3.) APPELLANT in the present case contested and resisted the complaint, wherein its plea was that the respondent has no cause of action to file the complaint and this is not a consumer dispute and it was also pleaded that the assessment of the loss was rightly made by the Surveyor.
Rejoinder to the complaint was also filed, wherein the respondent had reiterated the stand taken in the complaint.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.