- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against order dated 11.02.10, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called District Forum for short), in complaint case No.301/06, whereby the complaint of respondent No.1 was allowed in part and the appellant, who was OP No.1 before District Forum has been directed to pay Rs.2,25,000/ - as compensation on account of loss of insured articles in the incident of fire and also to pay further compensation of Rs.3,000/ - for mental agony caused to the respondent No.1 / complainant and Rs.700/ - as cost of litigation. The amount of compensation has been ordered to be paid along with interest @ 6% p.a. w.e.f. 05.09.06 till the date of payment.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant / respondent No.1 had taken Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy from the appellant / insurance company to cover the loss or damage to its showroom and stock in trade to the extent of Rs.15,00,000/ -. As per the case of respondent No.1 in the intervening night between 22 - 23.05.2005, on account of sudden breaking of fire in the insured premises, due to electrical spark in the meter, the stock was damaged to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/ -. Respondent No.1 / complainant is a dealer of Indo Farm Tractors and spare parts. In its showroom it keeps stock of spare parts and new parts in the storeroom. In the premises, there are two sheds; the first one is used as showroom, for keeping some of the spare parts. In another shed there was a big hall, used for workshop which is mainly used for welding works and for displaying of built articles. Then, there was one more portion, where the complainant / respondent No.1 used to keep new parts and other parts like trolley etc. Cash credit facility of Rs.12,00,000/ - have also been obtained from respondent No.3 by the complainant and for that purpose the entire stock in trade was hypothecated with the Bank along with all materials. As per terms and conditions of agreement with the Bank, every month details of the stock was being supplied by the complainant to the Bank. The Officers of the Bank also used to inspect the stock from time to time. Before issuing the policy, the agent of OP No.1 / insurance company also physically verified the stock in the premises of the complainant and then the policy was issued, which was consisting of only one page, without any terms and conditions. On happening of incident of fire, the matter was immediately reported to the police and Municipal Corporation for seeking services of fire fighters. Municipal Corporation Officers immediately sent Fire Fighting Party to the spot and after extensive exercise of two hours, the fire could be extinguished. On account of breaking of fire oil, grease, tyres, tubes etc., which were highly inflammable, were all burnt. Immediate intimation could not be given to the insurance company, as the complainant was not aware that the policy is in respect of entire premises, as the policy document was with the Bank and not with the complainant. Later on, when it was informed that everything in the premises was insured, then the insurance company was intimated on 27.05.05. Thereafter, Surveyor Hare Keshav Tiwari was appointed by the insurance company, who came to the spot on the next day and inspected the spot. As per estimation of the complainant, there was loss of goods of around Rs.7,00,000/ - in the incident of fire. Surveyor appointed by the insurance company inquired from the complainant regarding the loss and expressed some doubts on the incident of fire itself, whereas the cause of fire, as per the police investigation, was electrical short -circuit. So far as the documents are concerned, the papers which were kept in the premises, including account books, ledger etc. were all burnt in the incident of fire and so the complainant requested the surveyor to verify those documents from the Bank, where their copies were available, but ultimately the surveyor expressed his opinion that there was no loss to the complainant because of incident of fire and the incident of fire itself was doubtful. On the basis of this report, the insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant, so the complainant was having no other choice but to file complaint before District Forum.
(3.) IN reply of which, the appellant insurance company admitted that it has issued Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy for the coverage of loss or damage to the showroom or stock in trade, due to fire accident. It has also been averred that along with the policy standard form of Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy was attached and then the policy was handed over. It has also been averred that old stock was deliberately set on fire by the complainant in order to get fire claim under the policy by pretending it to be a genuine fire accident. It has also been averred that had it been a genuine incident, then the complainant would have informed the insurance company immediately to enable it to assess the actual loss. It has also been averred that the surveyor Hare Keshav Tiwari, is a well qualified and experienced surveyor and loss assessor, who observed that there were two sheds in the complainant?s premises. The outer one was pakka construction and inner one was kachcha Kawelu Posh construction with no doors and windows thereon, where the complainant had strangely stored the stock. It has also been observed by the surveyor that the electric meter was 30 ft. away from the actual spot, from where the fire allegedly broke out, but surprisingly the nearby trees and wooden structures had not caught any fire, whereas it was impossible that the short -circuiting electric spark could have gutted the inner shed of the complainant?s premises without affecting the nearby trees and wooden structures. The surveyor has also observed that there was no sign of burning of any fresh stock and there were only old and rusted materials spread here and there. Account book and ledger were also not produced, on the pretext that they were destroyed in the alleged incident of fire. The complainant also could not give details about the material purchased by him and documentary proof thereof. On the basis of this report of the surveyor, the insurance company was convinced that the alleged incident of fire was not genuine and therefore the claim was repudiated and in doing so, it committed no deficiency in service. The other two respondents have also filed their separate replies. Respondent No.2 was the surveyor, who supported the case of the insurance company, whereas the respondent No.3 Bank has pleaded that it is a dispute between insurer and the insured, so no claim against the Bank lies.;