ARUNDHATI RAJESHWAR DESHMUKH Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
LAWS(MHCDRC)-2013-3-2
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on March 04,2013

Arundhati Rajeshwar Deshmukh Appellant
VERSUS
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.R.KHANZODE,PRESIDING MEMBER - (1.)THIS appeal takes an exception to an order dated 28.2.2007 passed in consumer complaint No.629/2005, Mrs. Arundhati Rajeshwar Deshmukh v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another by Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune. It is an appeal filed by the complainant Mrs. Arundhati Rajeshwar Deshmukh not satisfied with the compensation awarded in her favour. It may be pointed out that as stated at bar both the parties including the Insurance Company did not prefer any appeal and, thus, acquiesced with the said order.
(2.)THE deficiency in service against the Insurance Company namely United India Insurance Co. Ltd. was alleged for arbitrarily not accepting the entire claim made by the complainant Arundhati which arose on account of fire, which broke out on the night of 31.12.2003 at her business premises. The entire claim made was of Rs.17,65,000 while Insurance Company based upon the surveyor's report offered to settle the claim at Rs.2,29,786. Since the said offer amount of settlement was not accepted by the complainant, she had filed this consumer complaint on 18.11.2005. Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs.2,29,786 (as assessed by the surveyor) towards the claim which was accepted by the Insurance Company alnongwith interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
(3.)HEARD Mr. Rahul Gandhi -Advocate for the appellant and Ms. Sheetal Patil proxy advocate for Mr. A.S. Vidyarthi -Advocate for the respondent No.1. Perused the record and material placed on record and affidavit of power of attdrney holder of complainant Arundhati, who is her husband which was tendered in evidence inter alia including affidavit of surveyor Kamal Biyani and his report which was accepted by the Insurance Company and offered the settlement accordingly, supra. Complainant also relied upon her husband/power of attorney holder's rejoinder affidavit filed to the affidavit of surveyor. The survey report of surveyor Mr.Kamal Biyani is on record. The Insurance policy is not in dispute. The incident of fire is also not in dispute. Complainant is engaged in manufacturing of various automotive components such as springs, luggage carriers, baskets, etc. having her clients such as Bajaj Auto Ltd., Bajaj Tempo Ltd., Kinetic Engineering Ltd., Kinetic Honda Ltd., etc. She enjoyed the credit facility from opponent No. 2 Rupee Co -operative Bank Ltd, Her unit became sick in the course of time due to lack of orders from the Auto Manufacturers and it was further mentioned in the surveyor's report about the current status at the time of visit, the premises were given on rent to a firm owned and managed by son of complainant Arundhati. Surveyor in its report in para 4.2 quoted the statement given to him by complainant's husband and power of attorney holder Rajeshwar Deshmukh about the incidence and which reads as under:
"In the first or second week of December bank authorities were schedules to visit the factory for verification of stocks. Hence the entire stocks, press tools were kept together. On 31st December 2003, I closed the workshop at around 7 p.m. at around 4.45 a.m. Mr. Vijay Gavade, my neighbour informed me that something is burning in my workshop. He further informed that they are opening the workshop and will try to extinguish the fire. I reached workshop within 15 minutes. Those persons were extinguishing the fire. When I asked them whether I shall....v.o. (not readable)...to police in the morning.

The abovereferred statement is made just to substantiate the fact alleged by the Insurance Company that the fire which broke out was not a widespread one and go extinguished within couple of minutes i.e. 15 -20 minutes. It will be pointed out that in a rejoinder affidavit sworn by Rajeshwar Deshmukh to the affidavit filed by the surveyor, the referred statement supra, is not contradicted.

;


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