M/S. MAGPPIE INTERNATIONAL LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PD-4A, PITAMPURA, DELHI - 110 088 Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, 4, B.P. NEELAM BATA ROAD, BATA CHOWK, NIT FARIDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - The complainant company took a Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy from the opposite party for the period from 1.9.2012 to 31.8.2013, in respect of the building, plant and machinery, electrical installations, furniture, fixtures, fittings and office equipment at 153, KLM & N, EPIP Extn., Kundli, Sonipat to the extent of Rs.26,75,00,000.00. A fire broke out in the aforesaid factory of the complainant on 31.5.2013, resulting in the alleged total loss of the entire building, plant and machinery, furniture/fixtures/fittings and stocks, etc. On intimation being given to the OP Mack Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. was appointed to assess the loss and the complainant lodged a claim under above-referred policy for a total sum of Rs.26,75,00,000.00. The claim was lodged on 4.6.2013. The insurer released an interim payment of Rs.6 crores to the complainant on 2.11.2013. The surveyor submitted his report dated 5.5.2014 to the insurer, assessing the loss to the complainant at Rs.17,21,28,308.00. Before receipt of the said report, the complainant vide letter dated 2.5.2014, pursuant to the discussion with the surveyor had agreed to accept a net adjusted loss of Rs.17,21,28,308.00 towards full and final settlement of its claim, subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy held by it. However, vide Addendum dated 7.7.2014, the surveyor assessed the net adjusted loss in respect of the building at Rs.48,171,511.19 on the ground that the under insurance was to the extent of Rs.25.98% as against the earlier reported under insurance to the extent of Rs.17.755%. The insurer made an additional payment of Rs.10,67,56,258.00 to the complainant on 9.9.2014. No interest for delayed payment of the claim was paid to the complainant. The complainant is, therefore, before this Commission seeking the following loss:-

(2.) The complaint has been resisted by the insurer which has taken a preliminary objection that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. It is further alleged in the written version that having given consent to accept full and final settlement of the claim vide consent letter dated 2.5.2014, the complainant cannot dispute the quantum of the compensation paid to it.

(3.) Having taken instructions from Mr. Vinod Jain, Director of the complainant company, the learned counsel for the complainant states that the complainant is now pressing only for payment of interest on the amount of 10,67,56,258.00 as the payment was made more than 15 months after lodgement of the claim and the complainant had to pay huge interest to its bank in the meanwhile. In view of the aforesaid statement, I need not go into the question as to whether the insurer was justified in reducing the claim from Rs.17,21,28,308.00 to Rs.16,68,45,000.00.