- (1.) BY way of this complaint, the complainant has prayed for following reliefs: "The opponent be directed to pay to complainant the following amount. (a) Rs. 13,86,400/ - being the consent amount taken by the opponent for the claim suffered. (b) 18% interest from 1.4.1996 till realisation. Consent taken on 27.1.1996 and giving two months time for the payment. (c) Rs. 2,00,000/ - as special compensation (d) Rs. 10,000/ - cost for this proceeding Rs. 15,96,400/ - Total"
(2.) THE complainant has alleged following brief facts for obtaining indemnity compensation.
(3.) THE complainant had taken fire policy C type bearing No. 210300/603/99999 for Rs. 40,00,000/ - from 9.3.1995 to 8.3.1996 and Rs. 60,00,000/ - from 22.9.1995 to 21.9.1996, in all Rs. 1,00,00,000/ - covering risk of grey cloth materials including raw materials, finished, semi -finished, in process and in stores and stocks. Separate premium appears to have been paid by cheque on 6.9.1995 as per the relevant date appearing at the bottom of xerox copy of the policy. During the period of aforesaid policies, there was fire in one of the covered premises on 5.10.1995 during night time. Fire Brigade and Shaherkotda Police Station came to be informed about the incident. Fire Brigade reached the place of incident at around 10.50 p.m. on 5.10.1995 and it extinguished the fire by morning of 6.10.1995. The complainant intimated the opponent Insurance Company about the incident of fire and loss of stock suffered to the opponent Insurance Company. It deputed Surveyor M/s. Mehta and Padamse for verification and assessment of loss. The complainant supplied required documents and material to the Surveyor. After considering the material and documents submitted by the complainant and after long drawn discussion with the Surveyor the complainant was required to give consent for the assessment made by the Surveyor. The assessment of loss was worked out at Rs. 13,86,400/ - by the Surveyor. The complainant gave consent letter to the attending Surveyor on 27.1.1996. However, the complainant received letter dated 20.2.1996 from the opponent Insurance Company to send the FSL report. The complainant submitted such report to the opponent Insurance Company and requested to issue claim voucher immediately so as to enable the complainant to start the business efficiently. The complainant made inquiry about the claim and came to be informed that complainant s claim was under process and in short time the complainant would be informed about the same. The complainant then received letter dated 19.4.1996 once again stating that the claim was under process. The complainant has, therefore, made grievance in his complaint that in spite of supplying all the documents and attending to the requirement of the Surveyor and the opponent Insurance Company and in spite of obtaining consent from the complainant for Rs. 13,86,400/ - for the loss suffered by the complainant in the incident of fire, the opponent Insurance Company did not finalise the claim and pay the assessed amount to the complainant. The complainant had, therefore, alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opponent Insurance Company in the matter of settlement of complainant s claim and prayed for the aforesaid amount of indemnity compensation, interest and cost. As per Exh. 9, provisional statement of defence -cum -offer to deposit appearing at Exh. 8 appears to have been taken on record. Accordingly, the opponent Insurance Company has asserted that it had offered to settle the claim of the complainant at Rs. 8,03,530/ - but the complainant/insured did not accept the same and preferred to file complaint before this Commission. Hence, pending final disposal of the complaint and pending proof of claim by the complainant, the opponent expressed its readiness and willingness to deposit the amount of Rs. 8,03,530/ - with the Commission on condition that such amount should not be permitted to be withdrawn by the complainant. Thus, the opponent Insurance Company could not be said to be deficient in rendition of service. It has also been asserted that the complainant cannot compel its own assessment of loss to be accepted by the opponent Insurance Company. Factually speaking, the insured premises is connected with the adjacent sizing factory and as per the correct rate applicable in the present case, the annual premium would amount to Rs. 72,344/ -. That amount is required to be deducted from the final amount that might be adjudicated by the Commission. It has also been submitted that such an adjudication is required to be preferred to Civil Court inasmuch as complicated questions of facts would arise in respect of survey of loss.;