Decided on October 01,2010

R B Traders Maranda Appellant
New India Assurance Company Ltd And Ors Respondents


- (1.) APPELLANT has filed this appeal for the grant of compensation as claimed by him in the complaint after setting aside the order passed by District Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, Camp at Palampur in Consumer Complaint No.260/2006 on 24.3.2009. Respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent No.2 is the financier -bank who had provided financial assistance to the appellant. When on the night of 5th/6th March, 2006, sudden fire broke out in the business premises of the appellant, risk was duly covered under a valid policy of insurance. Matter was reported to the police and Daily Diary Report as per Annexure C.5 was recorded at Police Station, Palampur, District Kangra. Factum of fire is otherwise not in dispute. According to the appellant, he informed both the respondents and thereafter Surveyor was appointed to carry out spot survey by the insurer. Spot survey was carried out by Er. Rakesh Sood, and his report is Annexure C.27. Thereafter another Surveyor Shri Manmohan Sharma was appointed to carry out final survey. His report is Annexure C.29. He has given the details of the totally burnt, partially burnt and saved goods. Amongst other things, at the end of his report, he has mentioned as under: - As goods inspected, we are of the opinion that the valuation of totally burnt goods, partially burnt goods and saved goods comes for Rs.1 lac which is quite genuine and reasonable . Finally Shri Surinder Kumar Soni, Chartered Accountant was appointed to assess the loss sustained by the appellant on account of fire. This Surveyor came to the conclusion that loss suffered was to the tune of Rs.8,22,623/ - -, and after deducting price of salvage and excess clause, his final assessment of loss was Rs.7,72,623/ -. This amount has been paid by the respondent No.1 to respondent No.2. Receipt executed by respondent No.2 in favour of the respondent No.1 is Annexure OP.3. It is duly signed and stamped by the said respondent.
(2.) BEFORE the amount was actually paid vide Annexure OP.3, one claim disbursement voucher, Annexure OP.2, dated 27.7.2006 was issued by respondent No.1 for the said amount.
(3.) COMPLAINT file further establishes beyond doubt, that appellant on one side and respondent No.1 on the other were in correspondence with each other on the quantum of loss from time to time after the fire incident. Another fact that needs to be noted here is, that since appellant had been financed by respondent No.2 -bank, as per law and settled banking practice, he was supposed to furnish monthly stock statements to it. Copies of some such statements which are on the complaint file, giving value of the stock are as under: - JUDGEMENT_3_LAWS(HPCDRC)10_2010.htm What is the effect of these statements so far determination of dispute between the parties is concerned, will be dealt with in subsequent paras.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.