- (1.) THE present complaint is filed under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts are as under: The complainant has stated that the complainant is the Owner of the Firm. There is one shed at the address mentioned in the cause title. The complainant keeps the Electrical Installations, Plant, Machinery, stock, yarn and fabrics there. The complainant had availed a loan from the Opponent No. 3, the Opponent Nos. 1 and 2 are the Insurance Company. The Opponent No. 3 had got the Plant, Machinery, stock, etc. insured through the Opponent Nos. 1 and 2. The policy was valid from 6.9.2004 to 5.9.2005, the details are as under: JUDGEMENT_1_LAWS(GUJCDRC)10_2008.html
(2.) THE case of the complainant is, he had increased the stock as the business had grown and, therefore, the amount of risk was increased. The additional premium was paid for the policy No. OG -05 -2202 -4001 -00001263 -EEC3. The increase was made to 30,00,000, thus the total insurance was of Rs. 56,00,000. As per the complainant there was a fire in the factory of the complainant at about 00.40 hours on 22.5.2005. The plant, machinery, stock, yarn, fabrics, etc. were totally destroyed. The Opponent No. 1 was intimated of the loss. The Opponent No. 1 had appointed M/s. Mehta N. Padamsi to survey the loss. The Surveyor had visited the factory stock, machinery, building repairing cost was assessed and details were obtained by the surveyor. The complainant had shown the loss as under: JUDGEMENT_1_LAWS(GUJCDRC)10_20081.html
(3.) THE total loss was shown as Rs. 58,70,386. The complainant stated that the complainant relies on the books of accounts. The complainant stated that the Surveyor had written one letter dated 23.5.2005. The details were asked for. All the details were provided. The Surveyor has negligently not paid any attention to it. The complainant had written letter to the Opponent No. 3 bank also. The Opponents still did not settle his claim. Thus, all the Opponents have shown deficiency in service. As per the complainant, he had produced all the bills, books of accounts were produced. The Surveyor has not considered the same. Therefore, the complaint was lodged. As per the complainant, the Opponent No. 2 had sent 2 cheques amounting to Rs. 15,00,577 and Rs. 10,26,422. The total amount is Rs. 25,27,000. But the Opponent No. 2 has not informed about the remaining claim. The complainant had not accepted the amount initially. Later at the instance of the Opponent No. 3 the amount was accepted under protest. The complainant is entitled to Rs. 33,43,386 deducting the amount received. The complainant had served a notice dated 13.10.2005. The Opponents did not care to pay the amount and had sent a vague reply. Therefore this complaint was lodged. The factory of the complainant is at Ahmedabad. The office of the Opponent No. 2 is also at Ahmedabad. The Opponent No. 3 also belongs to Ahmedabad. Therefore, this State Commission has juridiction to try this complaint. The complainant has prayed Rs. 33,43,386 together with interest @ 15% making all the Opponents jointly and severally liable. The complainant has also prayed for Rs. 1,00,000 under the mental agony he had to undergo and Rs. 25,000 towards the cost of the complaint.;