- (1.) THE opposite parties and complainants in C.C. No. 222/ 2008, on the file of District Forum, Chennai (North), are the appellants in F.A. No. 363/2010 and 463/2010 respectively.
(2.) THE parties are referred in this order, as arrayed in the complaint.
(3.) THE complainant, who is running a business, had purchased Chappals from Tata advertiser stocked in their godown, which were insured for a sum of Rs. 2,75.000, for the period covering 9.11.2004 to 8.11.2005. Due to monsoon and heavy torrential rains, the godown was flooded causing damage to the stocks of the sandals insured, incurring a loss of Rs. 1,86,085, which was reported to the opposite party also. A Surveyor nominated by the opposite party, inspected the premises, and it appears he had filed a report, on that basis only a sum of Rs.28,860 was offered, denied. Despite repeated request to honour the legitimate claim of the complainant, the opposite party attempted to appoint another surveyor, and failed to settle the claim, which should be construed as deficiency in service. The opposite party, despite the submission of the records, required by a Surveyor nominated by them, failed to assess the damage properly, and the opposite party also failed to honour the legitimate claim, thereby compelling the complainant to file the case, not only seeking the value of the goods, but also seeking rental charges including compensation for mental agony.;