NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. KUKA RICE & GENERAL MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 17.12.2004 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent-complainant following directions have been given to the appellant-opposite party:

(2.) THE facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant firm which is a registered firm had been running the Rice and General Mills at village Sri Jiwan Nagar, District Sirsa. It got insured its entire building from the opposite party for a sum of Rs. 28,50,000. On 26.4.2001 there was heavy storm with heavy rain in the area as a result of which two godowns of the dimensions of 60' x 40' and 80' x 100' of the complainant were totally damaged. On 19.4.2001 the complainant reported the loss in respect of the aforesaid two godowns to the police and a Daily Diary Report dated 19.4.2001 was recorded. Thereafter, the complainant submitted an application to the authorities with prayer to visit the spot and to report about the loss suffered by it upon which Tehsildar, Rania inspected the premises of the complainant and submitted report dated 24.12.2001, wherein it has been mentioned that the aforesaid two godowns had been totally damaged due to heavy storm and heavy rain. According to the complainant net loss of Rs. 5,09, 520 was suffered in respect of the above stated two godowns. The complainant lodged the claim in respect of the above stated amount and supplied all the required documents to the opposite party. The opposite party took about one year in the settlement of the claim. During this period they harassed the complainant and by acting in a monopolistic way illegally and arbitrarily paid a sum of Rs. 65,979 only to the complainant without assigning any reason or justification. The complainant approached the opposite party to make the payment of the balance amount of Rs. 4,43,641 but no heed was paid by the opposite party in this regard. Forced by these circumstances, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum by filing the present complaint seeking directions against the opposite party to pay Rs. 4,43,641 balance amount of the claim; Rs. 20,000 as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment caused to it and Rs. 5,000 as cost of litigation.

(3.) IN pursuance to the notice a detailed written statement was filed by the opposite party. It was pleaded that the complainant was estopped from filing the present complaint because after receiving the information regarding the damage caused to the godown of the complainant, a Surveyor Shri Tarun Rai Arora, resident of New Delhi was appointed for inquiry and spot survey who after receiving necessary documents from the complainant submitted his detailed report on 11.3.2002 whereby he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 69,523. The amount so determined was received by the opposite party after deducting a sum of Rs. 3,500 under excess clause as full and final settlement against the receipt vide letter dated 28.3.2002. The stand of the complainant that he had suffered a loss of Rs. 5,09,620 was denied. Accordingly, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. Taking into consideration the respective stands taken in the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum accepted the complaint and issued the directions in its order dated 17.12.2004 noticed above. It is against this order the present appeal has been filed.