- (1.) THIS appeal by Opposite party i.e. National Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as OP) is directed against the order dated 23.7.2009 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, U.T.Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum) whereby complaint filed by respondent Sh.Dev Raj Sharma, a senior citizen (hereinafter to be referred as complainant) was allowed in the following terms ; The OP shall make the following payments to the complainant: i)To pay a sum of rs.23,500/ - for the loss suffered by the complainant in respect of damage to the house building and households articles i.e. Rs.26000/ - less loss caused to the beddings (taken as 50% of the combined loss assessed for both clothes and beddings) as per the Expert Report dated 23.09.2008 given by a professional valuer. ii)A sum of Rs.2000/ - paid by the complainant to the valuer for making fair assessment of the loss. iii)A sum of Rs.10,000/ - as compensation for mental harassment, pain and agony caused to the complainant on account of non - settlement of insurance claim. iv)A sum of Rs.2500/ - as litigation expenses. This order be complied with by OP within a period of one month of the receipt of its certified copy, failing which interest @ 15% p.a. shall also become payable on the amounts as at (i),(ii) and (iii) above w.e.f. the date of filing of the present complaint i.e.004.03.2009 till the date of realization.
(2.) IN nutshell, the facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated thus ; The complainant purchased Householders insurance policy NO.420200/48/08/360000120 from OP in respect of residential house No.201,Sector -8, Panchkula alongwith the household articles in the house. The OP charged premium of Rs.300/ - for covering any damage to the building for a sum of Rs.10 lacs and Rs.42.9 for fire and allied perils. The policy was valid for the period from 9.7.2008 to 8.7.2009. In the month of September,2008, the complainant and his family were away to Delhi for a few days and when they returned on 21.9.2008 they found that heavy rains had caused severe damage to the building and also to wood work and beds, bedding and cloths etc. The complainant then approached OP on 22.9.2008 and he was advised to get the loss surveyed from a qualified valuer. The complainant on the next day engaged a highly professional valuer who assessed the actual loss at Rs.26,000/ -. The complainant also paid Rs.2000/ - to the valuer as his fee. The OP also appointed its own surveyor who clicked around a score of photographs of the damaged property. The OP accepted that there was loss to the building and furniture but rejected the claim on the plea that it was not covered under Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy . Alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum.
(3.) ON the other hand, the case of OP before the District Forum was that the surveyor deputed by it had examined the building in question and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.6500/ - but the claim of the complainant was not recommended by the surveyor on the ground that the damage to the building was caused due to seepage of water which did not fall under any of the insurance perils and this cause of loss was not covered under the insurance policy and the same thing was communicated to the complainant vide letter dated 15.12.2008 .Thus, it was pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP. The learned District Consumer Forum after taking evidence of parties on the file and hearing them, allowed the complaint as indicted in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved opposite party has come up in this appeal. On the first day of admission hearing when the appeal was placed before the bench, both parties expressed their eagerness to advance arguments which we have heard and carefully gone through the file.;