M.THANIKACHALAM, J. - (1.) The complainant claiming a total sum of Rs.94,30,215/-, has filed this case under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, on the following grounds:- The complainant had insured the stock and the mill premises with the opposite parties, under two policies, viz (i) Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy No.F/220/2001, dated 26.06.2000 for a sum insured to the tune of Rs.8,01,000/- and Rs.30,00,000/- for the Building of Cotton Yarn Godown and Stock and Stock in process in the Cotton Yarn Godown respectively and (ii) Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy NO.414102/24000/F/636/2001 dated 25.01.2001 for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- covering the Stock in Godown-Stock of cotton in bales and borahs. On 5/6.05.2001 at about 1 a.m. there was a fire causing extensive damages and loss to the complainant?s godown and stocks, which they have stored the cotton, procuring for production, expecting power improvement also. Immediately after the fire, the same was informed to Sayalkudi Fire Station, Perunali Police Station by wireless. Distance between Sayalkudi and Perunali is about 20 kms and therefore, fire tenderer arrived only by about 2.45 a.m., in addition to other fire tenders from Kamuthi and Muthukalathur. Despite their effort to douse the fire, the entire stock of the cotton stored in the cotton godown caught fire and entirely devastated, for which, FIR was also registered at Perunali Police Station, further informing the matter to the Insurance Company, forthwith.
(2.) The third opposite party arranged for a surveyor, who conducted survey, investigated the matter initially, then jointly along with M/s.Wilton & Co. from Chennai. As requested by the Surveyors, then and there, all the necessary documents were submitted to them, thereafter on 10.06.2001, the claim was lodged for Rs.84,30,215/- but there was no honest efforts taken, by the opposite parties to settle the claim and the hope of the complainant for early settlement shattered.
(3.) The opposite parties instead of settling the claim of the complainant, to the shock and surprise, appointed a second surveyor, who had visited the Mill premises, once again requested the documents and other details, which were already furnished to the first surveyor and despite that also, the complainant submitted all the records, required. There was no occasion for the opposite parties, to appoint a second surveyor, that too, after 18 months of the date of incident, namely fire accident. From September 2002, there was not even a whisper from the second surveyor, thereby compelled the complainant to write number of letters, causing mental agony, not only to the Surveyor, but also to the opposite parties. Finally on 10.03.2003, the complainant received a letter informing that the claim was repudiated and the grounds stated therein are all frivolous, unsustainable. It is not the case of the opposite parties also, that the fire was engineered by the complainant, whereas it is the specific finding of the surveyors, that the fire was accidental, when that is the case, the repudiation of the claim invoking Clause 6 (b) and 8 of the Fire Policy is most unwarranted, invented only to evade the liability, denying the legitimate claim of the complainant, that should be construed as gross negligence and deficiency in service. On account of the non-settlement of the claim, which is quantified at Rs.84,30,215/-, the complainant was put to mental agony, for which, the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as compensation. Thus, alleging negligence and deficiency, this consumer complaint was lodged for the total recovery sum of Rs.94,30,215/-.;