State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Sky Alloys & Power Pvt. Ltd. vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 13 April, 2023
Complaint No.: M/s. Sky Alloys & Power Pvt. Limited Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/51 Vs. 13/04/2023
The New India Assurance Co. Limited
AFR / NAFR
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
Date of Institution: 01/10/2019
Date of Final Hearing: 11/04/2023
Date of Pronouncement: 13/04/2023
COMPLAINT CASE No.- CC/2019/51
IN THE MATTER OF :
M/s. Sky Alloys & Power Pvt. Limited,
Through: Director Shri Ravi Singhal,
S/o. Shri Kunjbihari Singhal,
Registered Office - Sky House, 16, Recreation Road,
Choubey Colony, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Through: Shri R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate
... Complainant.
Vs.
The New India Assurance Company Limited,
Through: Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office No.3, R.D.A. Building,
G.E. Road, RAIPUR (C.G.)
... Opposite Party
Through: Shri P.K. Paul, Advocate
CORAM: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SMT. RUCHI GOEL, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI GOPAL CHANDRA SHIL, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER
PRESENT: -
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri P.K. Paul, Advocate for the opposite party.
JUDGEMENT
PER: - JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT This complaint, under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) has been filed by the complainant feeling aggrieved by non-payment of entire amount of its insurance claim alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and seeking direction to them for payment of insurance claim amount of Rs.80,00,000/- (Eighty Lacs) and compensation for breakdown of the insured plant during the period of its repairs. Direction to the Partly Allowed Page 1 of 15 Complaint No.: M/s. Sky Alloys & Power Pvt. Limited Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/51 Vs. 13/04/2023 The New India Assurance Co. Limited opposite party for payment of interest on the amount of loss and cost of litigation has also been sought.
2. In nutshell the undisputed facts of the case are that the complainant obtained an Industrial All Risk Policy from the opposite party insurance company. During period of insurance, loss occurred to the insured plant. Claim was preferred before the insurance company and on the basis of report of the Surveyor the opposite party insurance company has paid to the complainant Rs.10,32,669/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Thirty Two Thousand Six Hundred & Sixty Nine) against the said insurance claim.
3. As per averments made in the amended complaint, the complainant obtained an Industrial All Risk Insurance Policy from the opposite party insurance company for the period between 19.07.2016 to 17.07.2017. During the said insurance period on 08.07.2017 there was heavy rainfall and thunderstorm in the locality where the insured plant is situated completely damaging the iron ore bunker, dolomite bunker, conveyor line, weigh feeder, control and power cables, conveyor gears, idlers, pulley and rollers. The incident was immediately intimated to the insurance company who in turn appointed Mr. K.C. Mahapatra as surveyor, who visited the insured plant on 12.07.2017 and assessed the loss on account of heavy rainfall and thunderstorm to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- and on account of breakdown of the plant Rs.80,00,000/-. The said surveyor demanded some documents and asked the complainant to complete some other formalities which were provided to the surveyor accordingly in time.
Partly Allowed Page 2 of 15 Complaint No.: M/s. Sky Alloys & Power Pvt. Limited Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/51 Vs. 13/04/2023 The New India Assurance Co. Limited
4. The complainant further averred that in the month of December 2018, the opposite party obtained a blank discharge voucher, got signature of the complainant and stated that payment of insurance claim will be done. It was stated to the complainant that unless blank discharge voucher is signed the payment of amount of loss would not be done, believing on all these facts and in need of money the complainant signed the blank discharge voucher on 21.12.2018. The opposite party without intimation to the complainant transferred Rs.10,32,669/- through NEFT to the account of the complainant. When in this regard the complainant raised objection, the opposite party assured that it is only a part payment and balance amount would be paid soon. When written version was filed by the opposite party before this Commission, it was mentioned that the complainant has received the above amount in full and final settlement. The complainant alleged that seal and signature of the complainant was obtained in a blank discharge voucher and later on it was filled mentioning Rs.10,32,669/- only as full and final settlement. This fact came into knowledge of the complainant for the first time after perusing the written version of the opposite party.
5. The complainant further averred that copy of surveyor report was not provided to it and from the written version of the opposite party it revealed that two survey reports were prepared by the Surveyor first on 08.03.2018 and second on 05.11.2018. Copy of which was received by the complainant for the first time from this Commission. It revealed from the said report that the surveyor has wrongly assessed the loss. The loss occurred to the insured plant was covered under the policy and regarding the insurance claim all the requisite documents were provided to the surveyor and the insurance company but the opposite party insurance Partly Allowed Page 3 of 15 Complaint No.: M/s. Sky Alloys & Power Pvt. Limited Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/51 Vs. 13/04/2023 The New India Assurance Co. Limited company illegally relied upon the incomplete and contrary to the facts report of the surveyor. Despite repeated requests made by the complainant, the insurance company not paid the amount of insurance claim. Then legal notice was sent to the insurance company but neither the amount of insurance claim nor reply of the legal notice was given, which amounts to deficiency in service. It is further averred that the insurance company demanded certificate regarding the weather in the relevant locality on the relevant date. Then on application moved by the complainant before the Tahsildar Kharsia, the Tahsildar prepared Panchnama on 14.01.2018 and issued certificate on 27.03.2018, which was submitted before the insurance company. Then only part payment was made through NEFT as aforesaid and not full payment of insurance company was made, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, this complaint is filed seeking direction to the opposite party for payment of amount as aforesaid in paragraph No.1.
6. The opposite parties in its written version have admitted the facts of issuance of insurance policy subject to policy conditions and exclusion clauses. The opposite party in the written version has further averred that vide letter 10.07.2017 the complainant informed that on 08.07.2017 at about 4:30 am in village Temtema there was heavy rainfall and thunderstorm due to which Iron Ore Bunker, Dolomite Bunker, Conveyor Line, Weigh Feeder, Control and Power Cables, Conveyor Gears, Idlers, Pulley and Rollers fitted in the insured plant were damaged. Independent Surveyor, dully licensed by IRDA, was appointed who inspected the site and after inspection for investigation certain documents were asked by the Surveyor from the complainant, which were not provided by the complainant. This fact it specifically denied that the loss suffered was to Partly Allowed Page 4 of 15 Complaint No.: M/s. Sky Alloys & Power Pvt. Limited Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/51 Vs. 13/04/2023 The New India Assurance Co. Limited the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- for machines and Rs.80,00,000/- against parts. The surveyor sent reminder for providing documents on which the complainant provided weather report of Meteorological Department of GoI, Nagpur dated 25/29.01.2018, from which it revealed that on 07.07.2017, 0.0 mm rainfall and on 08.07.2017, 6.8 mm rainfall was recorded. Except this document no any other documentary evidence was provided by the complainant. Then on the request of the insurance company to the surveyor, for submitting his report, the surveyor on 08.03.2018 submitted his report along with photographs. The surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.10,32,669/- but recommended that incident of thunderstorm along with heavy rainfall could not be proved by the complainant hence he is not entitled to get the insurance claim. Then on the basis of said report of the surveyor, the insurance company repudiated the claim on 26.03.2018. But after receipt of repudiation letter the complainant filed certificate of the Tahsildar Kharsia regarding occurrence of loss. Then the insurance company sending the said document requested the surveyor again for re-analysis of loss. The surveyor after reconsideration of all the documents submitted its Addendum Report dated 05.11.2018 and opined that on the basis of report of the Tahsildar the amount of Rs.10,32,669/-, as assessed earlier, is payable to the complainant. Then the said amount was paid to the complainant through NEFT for which the complainant gave his discharge voucher in full and final settlement of claim.
7. The opposite party insurance company has specifically denied the fact of getting blank discharge voucher dully signed by the complainant and mentioning details in the said discharge voucher later on by the insurance company. In fact the claim number and policy number Partly Allowed Page 5 of 15 Complaint No.: M/s. Sky Alloys & Power Pvt. Limited Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/51 Vs. 13/04/2023 The New India Assurance Co. Limited mentioned voucher was also received from the opposite party and the representative of the complainant asked to take the voucher to his office for producing the same after filling the blanks, putting official seal and revenue stamp. Then filling all the details in the said voucher without any coercion by his own wish the complainant submitted the discharge voucher in full and final settlement of claim. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any further amount against the said insurance claim. The amount assessed by the surveyor has already been paid by the insurance company and no deficiency in service is committed in doing so. Hence, the complaint being devoid of any merits be dismissed.
8. In support of the complaint the complainant has filed affidavit dated 30.09.2019 and 04.09.2020 of Mr. Ravi Singhal, the Director of the complainant, certificate of Tahsildar, Kharsia and documents as per list including bills, invoices etc. Whereas the opposite party in support of its written version has filed affidavit of Mr. Ashish Sahu, its Manager and that of the Surveyor Mr. K.C. Mahapatra dated 24.02.2020 and 07.01.2021, photocopy of insurance policy with its terms and conditions, Survey Report along with photographs, Addendum Report etc.
9. We have heard the final arguments advanced by both the parties and perused the written arguments submitted by them along with case- laws relied by both parties. We have also minutely perused the documents and affidavits submitted by both parties.
10. As per the arguments of both parties and the documents available on record the occurrence of loss, its coverage under the policy and admissibility of claim is no more in dispute looking to the payment of Partly Allowed Page 6 of 15 Complaint No.: M/s. Sky Alloys & Power Pvt. Limited Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/51 Vs. 13/04/2023 The New India Assurance Co. Limited Rs.10,32,669/- against the insurance claim by the insurance company. However, earlier the surveyor recommended the insurance company for repudiating the claim of the complainant on the ground that the peril operated on the risk could not be proved by the insured. But when certificate of Tahsildar was provided, the Surveyor recommended for consideration of claim on the basis of such certificate and payment of the amount already assessed by him. The said report and recommendation of the surveyor was accepted by the opposite party insurance company and Rs.10,32,669/- was transferred to the account of the complainant.
11. Looking to the above situation and facts of the case, the issue which remains to be considered is the rival contentions of the both parties on the amount transferred to the account of the complainant, whether it was transferred after accepting the same as full and final settlement of claim by the complainant and now they cannot claim any amount more than that or was it a partial payment of the insurance claim and the complainant can still raise his claim for remaining amount as per his estimate of loss ?
12. In this regard learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant was in need of money as it was in financial distress and the opposite party had specifically stated that unless the blank discharge voucher is signed, they will not pay the amount of claim, the complainant had to comply with the demand of the opposite party including signing a blank discharge voucher to make the opposite party for payment of claim amount. But signing of such blank discharge voucher in the given situation would not make estoppel upon the complainant for raising his claim for balance amount of his genuine insurance claim. In this regard learned counsel for the complainant has referred a circular Partly Allowed Page 7 of 15 Complaint No.: M/s. Sky Alloys & Power Pvt. Limited Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/51 Vs. 13/04/2023 The New India Assurance Co. Limited No.IRDA/NL/CIR/Misc/173/09/2015 dated 24.09.2015 of IRDA and argued that the insurer cannot use the instrument of discharge voucher as a means of estoppel against the aggrieved policy holders to seek higher compensation before any judicial fora or any other fora established by law. He has also placed reliance upon judgement of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of M/s. V.K. Gupta & Associates & 3 Ors. vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd., dated 18.01.2018, in which based on the circular dated 24.09.2015 of the IRDA, the Hon'ble National Commission has held that even if the settlement voucher has been signed, the complainant may pursue the complaint. Whereas learned counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance upon another judgement of Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Subhash Malhotra Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd, III (2014) CPJ 123 (NC); Mohan Lal Meena Vs. United India Inssurance Company Ltd. & Anr., II (2021) CPJ 94 (NC); Vishwa Nath Puri Vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co., II (2021) CPJ 101 (NC) and Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nipha Exports Pvt. Ltd., 2007 (1) CPR 80 (SC) and submitted that once the discharge voucher is signed and amount was accepted in full and final settlement of claim, the complainant cannot raise further claim alleging that only part payment of his insurance claim has been done. Thus the complaint is not maintainable.
13. We have gone through the above circular of the IRDA and the judgements relied by both parties. Regarding discharge voucher in settlement of claim, the circular dated 24.09.2015 of the IRDA envisaged that : -
"The Insurance Companies are using 'discharge voucher' or "settlement intimation voucher" or in some other name, so that the claim is closed and does not remain outstanding in their Partly Allowed Page 8 of 15 Complaint No.: M/s. Sky Alloys & Power Pvt. Limited Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/51 Vs. 13/04/2023 The New India Assurance Co. Limited books. However, of late, the Authority has been receiving complaints from aggrieved policyholders that the said instrument of discharge voucher is being used by the insurers in the judicial fora with the plea that the full and final discharge given by the policyholders extinguish their rights to contest the claim before the Courts.
While the Authority notes that the insurers need to keep their books of accounts in order, it is also necessary to note that insurers shall not use the instrument of discharge voucher as a means of estoppel against the aggrieved policy holders when such policy holder approaches judicial fora. Accordingly insurers are hereby advised as under:
Where the liability and quantum of claim under a policy is established, the insurers shall not withhold claim amounts. However, it should be clearly understood that execution of such vouchers does not foreclose the rights of policy holder to seek higher compensation before any judicial fora or any other fora established by law. All insurers are directed to comply with the above instructions."
On the basis of above circular Hon'ble National Commission in M/s. V.K. Gupta & Associates (supra) in paragraph No.17 has held that "17. ---------. Based on the circular dated 24.09.2015 of the IRDA, it seems that even if the settlement voucher has been signed, the complainant may pursue the complaint. In the present case, after accepting the settlement amount, the complainants have already written to the Insurance Company stating their dissatisfaction and the manner in which the amount of Rs.15,14,032/- has been deducted. Thus, the complainant has protested after receiving the settlement amount. Thus, on the basis of the IRDA Regulations, complaint needs to be considered on merits in the present case." The above principle laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission on the basis of circular of the IRDA, we are of the considered opinion that signing of discharge voucher does not foreclose the rights of the policy holder to seek higher compensation before any judicial fora. However, we are not inclined to believe the story narrated by learned counsel for the complainant that any blank discharge voucher was signed in compulsion and given to the insurance company. Two discharge vouchers are brought on record one by the complainant which is marked as Annexure C-34 and another is filed by the opposite party marked as Exhibit-Ex OP 15. In discharge voucher Annexure C-34 only Claim No. and policy No. is filled. Revenue stamp and seal over it, is also available in Partly Allowed Page 9 of 15 Complaint No.: M/s. Sky Alloys & Power Pvt. Limited Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/51 Vs. 13/04/2023 The New India Assurance Co. Limited the discharge voucher without any signature, whereas in Exhibit Ex OP 15 with the above information amount to be paid and other entries regarding the claim in respect of and acceptance in full and final satisfaction has been written in Hindi. It is very hard to digest that such an institution/ organization like the complainant would sing and put its seal over a revenue stamp on any blank paper/document/voucher having legal value and give it to other company. Learned counsel for the opposite party in this regard has cited judgements of Hon'ble National Commission and Hon'ble Apex Court, out of which Subhash Malhotra (supra) and Nipha Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra)'s case are old judgements i.e. were passed before the date of above Circular of the IRDA hence they are not applicable in the facts of the present case. In Mohan Lal Meena (supra) and Vishwa Nath Puri (supra)'s case the above neither circular of IRDA dated 24.09.2015 has been referred by the parties nor has been taken into consideration. In Mohan Lal Meena (supra) case further claim was raised but the Hon'ble National Commission was of the view that the surveyor's report cannot be brushed aside without any cogent reason and in Vishwa Nath Puri (supra)'s case claim was raised regarding some parts of the insured vehicle, which were already considered by the surveyor and allowed in part. Facts being different the above case-laws are of no help to the learned counsel. Hence, with the above discussion we are of the view that mere signing of discharge voucher does not foreclose the rights of the policy holder to seek higher compensation before any judicial fora.
14. Now the question remains for consideration is whether the surveyor has done incorrect assessment of loss, as alleged by the complainant.
Partly Allowed Page 10 of 15 Complaint No.: M/s. Sky Alloys & Power Pvt. Limited Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/51 Vs. 13/04/2023 The New India Assurance Co. Limited
15. In this regard learned counsel for the complainant alleged that there was fundamental and grave errors committed by the surveyor in assessing the loss. The complainant has completely ignored the documents, evidence and clarifications given by the complainant. The complainant has also tried to address that errors committed by the surveyor in giving opinion regarding admissibility of claim. Regarding extent of claim also the complainant argued that the surveyor has failed to assess the loss to the conveyor belt/ gallery, armoured cables, the bunkers and associated parts/ equipment despite noting that damage occurred in such parts. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that he submitted the estimate of loss marked as Annexure C-22, which was not considered by the surveyor or by the opposite party. He has further argued that surveyor has wrongly calculated under insurance and policy excess has also been calculated wrongly. In this regard learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Pradeep Kumar, (2009) 7 SCC 787 and argued that the approved surveyor's report may be basis or foundation for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured but surely such report is neither binding upon the insurer nor insured.
16. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party insurance company has supported the report of the surveyor and argued that on intimation of loss the insurance company appointed an IRDA licensed and independent surveyor, who has given his report without being prejudice and there was no reason to disbelieve his report. When in his first report the surveyor recommended for repudiation of claim on the ground that the peril of risk could not proved by the complainant, the claim was Partly Allowed Page 11 of 15 Complaint No.: M/s. Sky Alloys & Power Pvt. Limited Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/51 Vs. 13/04/2023 The New India Assurance Co. Limited repudiated. Later on when proof of peril of risk by way of certificate of Tahsildar was produced by the complainant, the same was sent to the said surveyor for his opinion afresh in the light of new document. The surveyor opined that the loss is admissible looking to the new document certificate issued by Tahsildar regarding the occurrence of loss, then again relying upon the said opinion of the surveyor the claim was settled and amount as per his assessment of loss was transferred to the account of the complainant. The opposite party insurance company has not committed any deficiency in service and the complaint be dismissed. Learned counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance upon judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khatema Fibres Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr, IV (2021) CPJ 1 (SC); Sikka Papers Limited Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr, 2010 NCJ 9 (SC); Deokar Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., I (2009) CPJ 6 (SC) and argued that the report of the surveyor cannot be brushed aside, his opinion and assessment needs to be given due weightage.
17. We have considered the contentions of both parties, minutely gone through the report of the surveyor as well as the above case-laws cited by both parties. In the survey report the surveyor under the heading Value at Risk has discussed about the risk on the date of loss in respect of plant and machinery and has mentioned that he has considered audited figures of plant & machinery from 2011-12 to F.Y. 2015-16 and applied RBI Index to find out replacement cost and given the entire calculation in Annexure- II. The said Annexure-II is also filed by the learned counsel for the opposite party insurance company. In the said Annexure-II the insured has submitted audit report but the audit report is based on Market Value Partly Allowed Page 12 of 15 Complaint No.: M/s. Sky Alloys & Power Pvt. Limited Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/51 Vs. 13/04/2023 The New India Assurance Co. Limited which cannot be considered to find out Replacement Cost of the insured item. Hence he has applied RBI Index to find out Replacement Cost of the insured item. Base year is considered 2011-12 in which year the RBI Index was 100 and in the year of loss 2015-16 RBI Index was 139.78 hence the percentage of under insurance was calculated and arrived at 28.46%. At the last in this page, Annexure II, it has been mentioned that net loss has been calculated basing on the above.
18. So far as percentage of under insurance is concerned, we are not inclined to indulge in its calculation, as the matter being expertise of the surveyor. But when we go through the report and calculation of gross loss and net loss it appears that the gross loss has been calculated adding the labour charges in the loss assessed under the head materials and then from the gross loss the under insurance has been deducted at the above rate. In our considered view the surveyor has acted very harshly while calculating the under insurance on the gross loss amount including the labour charges and on the amount assessed for cables as the sum assured for cabling has been separately obtained for Rs.6,00,00,000/-. The same should not have been calculated on labor charges portion and it was only applicable on the loss assessed to the Weigh Feeder i.e. Rs.18,62,500/- only and in this way the calculation should have been made as per the table below : -
Sr. Description Amount (Rs.) No. 1 Weigh Feeder 18,62,500.00 Less: U/I @ 28.46% 5,30,067.50 Total 13,32,432.50 2 Screen Cable (As per survey report) 1,65,000.00 3 Copper Armed Cable (As per survey report) 1,39,040.00 4 Copper Armed Cable (As per survey report) 1,36,080.00 Total 17,72,552.50 5 Add: 18% GST on Items No.1 (As per survey report) 3,35,250.00 6 Add: 28% GST on Items No.2 (As per survey report) 1,23,234.00 Total 22,31,036.50 Partly Allowed Page 13 of 15 Complaint No.: M/s. Sky Alloys & Power Pvt. Limited Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/51 Vs. 13/04/2023
The New India Assurance Co. Limited
7 Less: Policy Excess (As per survey report) 10,00,000.00
Total 12,31,036.50
8 Add: Labour Charge (As per survey report) 2,50,000.00
Total 14,81,036.50
9 Less: amount of salvage (As per survey report) 1,69,800.00
The total payable amount comes to Rs. 13,11,236.50
10 Less: Amount already paid 10,32,669.00
Balance amount payable comes to Rs. 2,78,567.50
i.e. Rs. 2,78,567.00
Regarding the salvage learned counsel for the complainant submitted that they are ready to keep the salvage hence the amount of salvage is deducted in the above calculation. As per our opinion the opposite party insurance company was required to settle the insurance claim as per above calculation and amount was required to be paid accordingly to the complainant.
19. So far as the report of surveyor is concerned learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon judgement in the case of Pradeep Kumar (supra) whereas learned counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance upon Khatema Fibres Ltd. (supra), in which Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed the case of Pradeep Kumar (supra) also and has come to the conclusion that in paragraph No.38 as under : -
"38.------. Once it is found that there was no inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance of the duties and responsibilities of the surveyor, in a manner prescribed by the Regulations as to their code of conduct and once it is found that the report is not based on adhocism or vitiated by arbitrariness, then the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to go further would stop".
In the facts of the instant case, so far as observations and opinion given by the surveyor is concerned we are agree with the same except the calculation of under insurance on which figure it was calculated. We do not find any reason to deviate from the observations of the surveyor in the facts of the present case as no cogent evidence is adduced by the complainant in contrary or to question the integrity, honesty or adequacy Partly Allowed Page 14 of 15 Complaint No.: M/s. Sky Alloys & Power Pvt. Limited Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/51 Vs. 13/04/2023 The New India Assurance Co. Limited in the quality, skill and nature of duties and responsibilities of the Surveyor. Hence, there is no question to doubt the report of the Surveyor, except the calculation of under insurance on which figure it was calculated. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that estimate of loss annexure C-22 was not considered by the surveyor or by the insurance company and accordingly the report of the surveyor and the addendum report is incorrect. There appears no record of submitting this estimate to the surveyor or to the insurance company hence we do not find any substance in this argument of the complainant. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the opposite party insurance company has committed deficiency in service in not settling the claim properly and was required to pay the amount as per aforesaid calculation.
20. Therefore for the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that this complaint is liable to be partly allowed and partly allowed accordingly with the following directions : -
(i) The opposite party insurance shall pay the complainant the difference of the insurance claim amount as per calculation made hereinabove i.e. Rs. 2,78,567/- (Rupees Two Lacs Seventy Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Seven).
(ii) The above amount shall be paid by the opposite party insurance company to the complainant with interest @ 6% p.a. w.e.f.
28.12.2018 i.e. the date of transfer of the amount of Rs.10,32,669/- to the account of the complainant.
(iii) The opposite party shall pay cost of litigation to the complainant which is quantified at Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand).
(iv) The above all the amount shall be payable within one month from the date of this order.
(Justice Gautam Chourdiya) (Smt. Ruchi Goel)
President Member
/04/2023 /04/2023
(Gopal Chandra Shil) (Pramod Kumar Varma)
Member Member
/04/2023 /04/2023
Pronounced On: 13th April 2023
Partly Allowed Page 15 of 15