S.C.VYAS,PRESIDENT - (1.) THIS is a complaint, filed under Section 17 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as to "Act" for brevity),claiming compensation of Rs. 90,00,000 against the O.Ps. on the ground of loss in the shop of the complainant on account of fire.
(2.) IT is not in dispute that the complainant is a proprietorship firm and was having a showroom -cum -shop located at Durg. It is also not in dispute that the OP No. l National Insurance Company covered the Bank Loan as well as stock of the complainant firm by providing insurance policy firstly for Rs. 31,70,000 thereafter by making endorsement and by paying additional premium, the coverage was extended up to Rs. 50,00,000 from 11.7.2007 to 14.5.2008 and then by second endorsement the coverage was extended up to Rs. 75,00,000 from 11.9.2007 to 14.5.2008. In the intervening night of 17th and 18th October, 2007, on account of fire, stock of garments and sarees was burnt. A Surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company to conduct survey and to assess the loss. An Investigator was also appointed. OP No. 4 Shri Ashok Motiani of M/s. Ashok and Company, Nagpur, was appointed as Surveyor.
(3.) AS per case of the complaint, facts of the case in brief are that the complainant was enjoying cash credit loan from Durg Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank and the Bank was having floating ownership upon the material and the stocks. Monthly stock statement was regularly submitted to the Bank and was verified also from time to time. In the incident of fire of intervening night of 17th and 18th October, 2007 second section of the shop, where the costly huge stock of garments, mostly wedding sarees was stored, burnt causing extreme damage to the stock as well as furniture, fixtures and the building. Fire Brigade of Bhilai reached to the spot quickly and started damage control exercise and ultimately the fire was controlled. The Insurance Company was informed regarding the incident. On account of this incident, there was heavy damage to the stock of sarees, furniture, fixtures and the building. Surveyor OP No. 4, appointed by the Insurance Company, reached to the site on 20.10.2007 and conducted physical verification of damaged stock, furniture, fixtures and building and also took photographs. Some information were also called by the Surveyor which was provided. Complainant reported about the estimated loss for Rs. 64,66,749 for the stocks, Rs. 2,35,000 for furniture and fixtures and Rs. 1,75,000 for building damages, as per Annexures 1 to 65 to the Insurance Company. But in spite of assessment of Surveyor, the claim was delayed and the Surveyor was unnecessarily, from time to time, asking for one document and explanation or another. Insurance Company has also not paid the amount of claim in time. Letters were addressed to the Insurance Company with copy to the Surveyor. Then, ultimately the Insurance Company offered only Rs. 9,67,000 as per loss assessed by the Surveyor as compensation and asked the complainant to sign discharge voucher as full and final settlement. The document was signed by the complainant with a note that he was willing to accept the payment under protest, but the Insurance Company refused to make conditional payment. As the full amount was not offered, so the complaint has been filed by the complainant assessing the amount of loss as Rs. 67,00,000, interest @12% on that amount from the date of loss i.e.17.10.2007 and compensation for mental torture and harassment Rs. 5,92,000, in this way total amount of Rs. 90,00,000 has been claimed as compensation. The Insurance Company in its written version has averred that in a short span of time the insurance policy which was initially obtained by the complainant for coverage of Rs. 31,70,000 was extended up to coverage of Rs. 1,56,70,000, in all. It has been asserted that Mr. Ashok Motiani of M/s. Ashok and Co., Nagpur was appointed as Surveyor who demanded details of the stock for the purpose of determining the loss, from the complainant. Physical verification was also done in presence of the complainant by said Surveyor. He demanded some other details regarding the incident, stock list, list of damaged stock, list of furniture, fixtures, etc., and quantity and value of salvage but in spite of repeated reminders sent by the Surveyor, no such documents were provided by the insured to him. Surveyor has physically verified the stock at the spot and had assessed the loss and then submitted his report to the Insurance Company and recommended for payment of Rs. 9,67,000 which was accepted by the Insurance Company and payment was offered. It has been asserted that exaggerate claim was preferred by the complainant which was considered on its merits and then a reasonable amount of Rs. 9,67,000 was offered which has been denied to accept, by the complainant. It has also been asserted that Mr. R.K. Agrawal, retired DSP, was appointed as investigator in the matter by the insurance company, who observed that the complainant was claiming loss of fresh valuable sarees, in the incident of fire, whereas the agreement with Sabiruddin Khan shows that the complainant was keeping stock of defective sarees only, which were not of much value. It has also been averred that during investigation it revealed that the complainant was to pay Rs. 60,00,000 to the debtors at Kolkata, whereas he was having Bank limit of Rs. 2,00,000 only. In spite of these facts, there was agreement with Sabiruddin for cash purchase which shows exaggeration in the claimed amount. Thus it was denied that by offering Rs. 9,67,000, any deficiency in service was committed by the Insurance Company.;