National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Mr.Ranjay Oswal & Smt.Sneh Oswal. vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. on 19 May, 2008
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 250 OF 1998 1. Ranjay Oswal Flat No.1, Anarkali Complex, The Mall, Ludhiana, Punjab 2. Smt. Sneh Oswal. Flat No.1, , Anarkali Complex, The Mall, Ludhiana, Punjab Complainants Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. 24, Whites Road, Chennai Opposite Party ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 50 OF 1999 M/s. L.C. Oswal Knits ( India) Ltd., B-III-537, Purana Bazar, Ludhiana, Punjab Complainant Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. 24, Whites Road, Chennai Opposite Party BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT HONBLE MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER HONBLE DR. P.D. SHENOY, MEMBER. For the Complainant Mr. Lokesh Bhola, Adv. For the Opposite Party Mr. Vishnu Mehra and Ms. Sakshi Mittal, Advocates. For SBI/Reliance Capital Mr. R.K. Dikshit, Advocate Dated: 19th May, 2008 O R D E R JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, J., PRESIDENT The only question which requires consideration is whether the fire which destroyed the factory, building, machinery, stocks and buried the father and brother of Complainant No.1, was self-engineered or not? In our view, for the reasons discussed hereinafter, it cannot be imagined that the fire was self-engineered for taking away the life of the father and brother of the Complainant No.1. Such far-fetched imagination on the part of the Insurance Company can be stated to be bordering on unfair trade practice because: .(i). undisputedly, two Directors, namely P.C.Oswal and Sanjay Oswal, father and brother of the Complainant No.1, were burnt to death in the said fire; .(ii). no FIR for suicide or murder was lodged for the said incident; .(iii). neither the Police nor the civil authorities have doubted the incident of accidental fire; .(iv). the Insurance Company has miserably failed to establish that fire was not accidental; and, .(v). there is nothing on record to establish that somebody planted dynamite/detonator for causing fire. The investigators appointed by the Insurance Company are not sure about the cause of fire and have raised some doubt but that cannot be said to be sufficient for avoiding liability by the Insurance Company. Facts: The day of Diwali, 11.11.1996, became a day of nightmare for the Complainants as a terrible and devastating fire gutted the factory of the Complainants and reduced it to ashes and debris. Not only that, the Complainant No.1s father and brother, namely, Prem Chand Jain and Sanjay Jain were found buried in the debris. The fire destroyed the factory, building, machinery, stocks and other valuables including the relevant documents. Undisputedly, the Complainant had taken various insurance policies from the Opposite Party Insurance Company for the building, material, stocks, etc. After the fire, the Complainant lodged claim with the Insurance Company and supplied all the relevant documents. The Insurance Company appointed M/sJ.B.Boda Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., and Thapar, Srinivasan and Kapoor Pvt. Ltd. as surveyors to investigate and assess the loss. The Surveyors submitted their joint interim survey report on 2.1.1998. For the cause of fire, it has been stated that it may be construed that the fire was accidental in origin and in all probability, caused by a misdirected fire cracker or electric short-circuit. Repudiation Letter: Despite this, by letter dated 12.9.2000 the Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the Complainant. In the repudiation letter the Insurance Company stated as under: After getting your claim thoroughly surveyed as mandatorily required and further investigated by impartial agencies, and perusing the same along with all other information/document and all other material on record and having regard to the terms and conditions as embodied in the policy of insurance, we are constrained to state that your claim is clearly fraudulent and we hereby regretfully repudiate the same under policy condition No.8 on the following amongst other grounds: .(i). The cause of fire is not accidental. According to the investigation carried out by us, the alleged incidence of fire was stage managed. Evidence clearly shows that the fire was caused by use of powerful dynamite/detonator, attributable to the use of dynamite/detonator .(ii). The transactions between you and others, i.e. V.H.Synthetics Agency, V.H.Hosiery Textile Mills, V.H.Woollen Mills, Oswal Enterprises, Padamshree Yarn Agencies, Peejay International, Goyal Sons are all bogus transactions they are mere paper transaction. .(iii). Huge amounts were drawn from the bank by you against a very meager value of stocks and also amounts were drawn from the bank against fictitious sundry debtors/receivables. .2. Without prejudice to the aforegoing and without admitting any liability, it is stated that under the policies buildings, plant and machinery are subject to reinstatement value clause under which it is mandatory to reinstate the damaged property. You have failed to reinstate the damaged property. Hence, these complaints. Appreciation of Survey/Investigation Reports: In the present complaints, the stand taken by the Insurance Company that the fire was not accidental, cannot be justified by any stretch of imagination. The Surveyors appointed by the Insurance Co. specifically stated that the fire was accidental and did not doubt say of the Complainants. Further, there is no dispute with regard to the quantum of the loss assessed by the surveyors. Now, the only dispute is as to whether the fire was accidental or self-engineered. Cause of fire as found by surveyors/investigators. For the cause of fire, we would refer to the findings recorded by the surveyors. In these cases, different surveyors were appointed from time to time to find out cause of fire and to assess the loss. The observations with regard to cause of fire are as under: .I. J.B.Boda Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. and Thapar, Srinivasan & Kapoor Pvt. Ltd., vide their report dated 6.9.1997. First, M/s.Thapar, Srinivasan & Kapoor Pvt. Ltd. were appointed to survey and assess the above loss vide instructions of the Regional Office on 11.11.1996. Thereafter, M/s.J.B.Boda Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, were appointed as Joint Surveyors vide letter dated 12.2.1997. A joint visit was made by them on 19th and 20th February, 1997. They have submitted their report on 6.9.1997. The relevant portion with regard to cause of loss is as under: .6.0. CAUSE ANALYSIS: In view of the large scale destruction caused by the fire, which originated from the opposite building, it has not been possible to specifically confirm the cause of the fire. The police and fire brigade have also not commented on the same. We have examined various possible causes, discussed as follows: .1. Electric short circuit in the wiring: This, as a cause, is a possibility, given the overcrowding, over construction, and the poor overall state of electric wiring in the Purana Bazar area of Ludhiana. There is also a large amount of industry in the area. However, in view of the complete destruction of the building, it was not possible to confirm this as a casue. .2. Accidental ignition through a fire cracker: This is highly probable, as the night the fire occurred was Deepawali night, traditionally celebrated in North India by lighting fire crackers/candles. These are lit in an indiscriminate fashion, and a stray rocket could have landed on the roof of the factory, igniting any of the stocks present there and spread thereafter, to the rest of the building and thereafter to the residential premises. This cause may also explain the blast reportedly heard in the neighbourhood. It may be noted that while officially, firecrackers are banned in Punjab, this is not practically enforced, as even reported in the press cutting enclosed as Annexure-I. .3. Auto ignition of the contents in the factory: This has been ruled out by us, as none of the flammable contents, such as fuel oil, dry cleaning solvents, etc., were present in large quantities in the factory premises, nor was there any available igniting source, in the closed factory. .4. Carelessly discarded cigarette/bidi butt: While this cannot be ruled out, it cannot be confirmed either, in the light of the complete destruction of the factory building. .5. Malicious Intent: In the light of the tragic demise of the two principal Directors of the Company, we are inclined to rule this out. In the ultimate analysis, we are satisfied that the fire was accidental in origin, and, in all probability, caused by a misdirected fire cracker, or an electric short circuit. .
14. Insureds liability:
In view of the accidental origin of the fire, we are of the opinion, that the claim falls within the purview of the Fire Policy C' issued. The final decision on liability, is however, that of the insurers.
It appears that the findings were not convenient to the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company for one reason or the other appointed surveyors/investigators, one after the other, to have tailor made reports.
.II. Report of Investigator, Vardhaman & Co., Chartered Accountants, vide preliminary report dated 5.1.1998:
On 11.11.1996 the factory was not working due to deepavali holiday and fire took place on that day. They were appointed by the Insurance Company on 16.12.1996.
Preliminary Survey Report dated 5.1.1998:
The conclusion reached by them is to that the cause of fire was due to use of powerful dynamite/detonator and the collapse of the building and the recovery of dead bodies of Mr.Premchand Owsal and Mr.Sanjay Oswal from the debris indicates that the incidence of fire as on 11.11.1996 (early morning) was stage managed.
The surveyors, after verification of records at the fire station office, police station and interaction/discussion with neighbours, have reached the above conclusion.
.(i). On the basis of the FIR which recorded the statement of one Mr.Rajesh Kumar on 11.11.1996, a resident of the nearby area of the factory, the surveyors concluded that, there was a blast and then only fire started which spread to all directions. Due to blast the building was collapsed. However, the intensity of fire was not severe.
.(ii). The other reason for reaching the aforesaid conclusion is that no postmortem of the deceased was conducted.
.(iii). Since the factory was not working on that day, the generator was also not used, the blast of the generator set was not accidental;
.(iv). The two deceased Directors were in the factory premises well before the occurrence of the blast, and it is not correct that they moved towards the factory on hearing of fire accident.
.(v). The factory building was 45 years old and the insured had taken huge advance of Rs.1.25 crores from the Bank against stocks and book debts.
Conclusion:
As already explained the incidence of fire was stage managed and there is enough evidence in the bank to show that huge funds were drawn by the insured against non-existence stocks and bogus books debts.
The transaction between insured and others v.H.Synthetics agency, V.H.hosiery Textiles Mills, V.H.Wollen Mills, were all bogus transactions and these groups were mentioned as Vallabh International in the news published in LUCKY change dated 16.12.1996.
Thereafter, they gave final investigation report.
Final Investigation Report dated 16.1.1998 In the Final Investigation Report dated 16.1.1998 they have concluded as under:
With regard to Port-mortem report:
In our interim report, we stated that post-mortem was not conducted. We made this remark in our interim report because inspite of many requests to furnishy copies of the post moretm report we were informed by the bank officials, statutory auditors and others that they were not aware whether any port-mortem was conducted since they did not get a copy of it. Hence, we mentioned that the post mortem was not conducted in our interim report.
We understand that a copy of the post-mortem report was given to the Insurance Company and a Xerox copy of the same was given to us on 13.1.1998 by United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai. However, we could not read and understand the particulars in the post-mortem report because the Xerox copy furnished to us was not very clear.
With regard to conclusions reached by them in their final survey report, they have concluded as under:
We wish to state that as Chartered accountants, we do not have any judicial/non-judicial power and we could not go beyond certain limits.
Hence our report / observations are based on the details and other information / documents furnished by the bank officials, statutory auditors of the insured and others.
.1. The cause of fire was due to use of powerful dynamite / detonator and the collapse of the building and the recovery of dead bodies of Mr.Premchand Oswal and Mr.Sanjay Oswal from the debris indicates that the incidence of fire as on 11.11.1996 (early morning) was stage managed. (on 10.11.1996 the factory was not working due to deepavali holiday).
Huge amounts were drawn from the bank by the insured against a very meager value of stock and also amounts were drawn from the bank against fictitious sundry debtors/receivables.
It was possible, because bank officials collude with the insured and cleverly assisted by the statutory auditors of the insured. The statutory requirements regarding disclosure of stocks were not disclosed by the insured in the accounts and also was not reported by the statutory auditors in their report.
The statement of stock as on 8.11.1996 and the statement of sundry debtors as on 8.11.1996 were in fact received by the bank only after the incidence of fire.
The bank officials did not verify the stock physically on 8.11.1996. the value of stocks disclosed in the stock statement dated 8.11.1996 were highly inflated and the amount receivable as per statement of sundry debtors as on 8.11.1996 were all fictitious / paper transactions.
The transaction between the insured andothers, Oswal Enterprises, Padamshree Yarn agencies, Pee Jay International, Goyal sons, V.H.Synthetics agency, v.H.Hosiery Textile Mills and V.H.Woollen Mills were all paper transactions and these groups were mentioned as Vallabh International in the news published in Lucky Change dated 16.12.1996.
We once again place on record that the above observations are based on the information furnished / gathered by us and on analyzing the information, the above irregular features of the claim are exposed.
We feel that to obtain legally enforceable evidence it is possible only for the investigating agency of the central Government who alone could expose the magnitude of deep rooted conspiracy of the insured who was cleverly assisted by the bank officials and the statutory auditors of the insured.
.III. Dinesh Gopal & Co., Engineers, Surveyors, Consultants & Investigators, vide their final survey report dated 17.2.1999, regarding cause of fire observed as under:
9.0 Cause of fire vis--vis admission of liability:
However, we cannot ignore the fact that the insurers have already discharged their liability towards the insureds, partly by entertaining and making payment in respect of P.A. claims of both the deceased directors, who lost their lives in the said fire. Further, the civil authorities did not suspect it as a created fire or else the matter obviously enquired by them further.
We are also inclined to doubt that the remotest chance of this fire could have been because of reasons beyond control of the Directors who unfortunately became the victims of the said fire. This is a doubt which could have only been cleared by Shr.Prem Chand & Shr Sanjay had they not perished in the said ire.
They have also observed: In any case, we are not able to rule of the possibility of occurrence of fire deliberately by the insured to overcome their financial problems. However, there are no eye witnesses, no evidence and the neighbours, also do not come forward to depose and give anything which can be treated as evidence. We also, analysed the possibility of seeing the directors of the firm by neighbourers just at the junctures before collapse of building. However, this was an extremely remote possibility and perhaps chowkidar was the person who could have seen them. He emphatically denied having seen any of them. But, the feeling amongst neigbourers certainly exist regarding the possibility of the fire being set up by the insured.
The finding on this aspect reached by the surveyor is as under:
Cause of fire: Financial position of the Ltd. Co. occurrence of the fire/explosion on 11.11.1996 resulting in deaths of the directors was extremely lean combined with family tangles. The possibility of fire due to deliberate attempt on the part of the insured is not ruled out under the circumstances prevailing at that time and the way the fire has been detected, reported and spread resulting tragic deaths of two directors and loss of property. No direct supporting evidence including eyewitness are available.
However, there was a strong felt sympathy angle all around in favour of the insured because of the deaths of the two directors. Motives on part of the insured to manipulate the fire for defrauding the insurers also cannot be ruled out under the circumstances prevailing in the business house of the insured at that time. They were in deep waters regarding financial shape of the company with the reputation of their at stake.
Records produced by the insured regarding fire loss do not inspire much confidence and are bereft of authenticated facts and figures. Nothing on ground suggestive of an accidental fire apparently exists and everything including verbal disclosures by some of the neighbors lead towards possibility of a manipulated fire by the insured.
This report is totally vague and is clear from the highlighted portion.
.IV. Survey Report of M/s. Rajesh Nakara & Co., Chartered Accountants, Surveyors & Loss Assessors, dated 19.5.1997.
According to them the cause of fire is as under:
Cause of fire: Due to badly gutted and complete collapsed condition of post fire premises we could not point exact cause of fire.
This report does not help the insurer in any way.
.V. Survey report of M/s. Loss Prevention Association of India Ltd., New Delhi , dated _________.
In the introductory remarks, they have stated as under:
A major fire loss occurred in the woolen garments manufacturing premises of L.C. Oswal Knits India Ltd., Ludhiana on 11.11.1996 at early morning. The fire also claimed two lives in this particular incident. Information about the loss was reported to Loss Prevention Association of India Ltd. (LPA) by United India Insurance Company Limited, Ludhiana Regional Office, vide their letter No. LDRO:TECH:FIRE:AKM:YS:395/96/7150 dated 12.11.1996. Accordingly, LPAs officer Shri D.K.Sarkar conducted the site investigation on 5.12.1996 along with the official from United India. The purpose of this investigation was to find out major factors which mainly contributed in turning the incident into major loss event and to suggest remedial measures to stop the recurrence of such fire incident in future.
Regarding the incident, they have stated as under:
On
10.11.1996 factory was closed for deepawali. As stated in the early morning hours of 11.11.1996 at about 0430 hrs., when everybody was asleep, a loud bang was heard. Hearing the bang, Sh.Prem chand Oswal owner of M/s. L.C.Oswal Knits Ltd., came out to see what had happened and noticed that his own factory building in front of his house was ablaze and some upper floors had already collapsed. He immediately raised an alarm to warn the family members who were asleep as flames of the fire leaping out through the factory building had already set the ground floor of the residential building in fire. The owner took his eldest son with him, along with the key of the factory building, through the fire, opened the factory premises and entered inside the factory. In the meantime by neighbours, who reached the site, informed the local fire brigade authorities and police station over telephone about the incident and also engaged themselves in the rescue of the other family members mostly ladies and children, who were inside the residential building. Fire brigade reached the site immediately but could not take the tender very close to the site due to narrow lane but had to station the tenders at about 150 m away started fire fighting operation by laying fire hoses. The family members were rescued with great difficulty as fire by that time had engulfed entire building. Most of the family members had received severe burn injuries and taken to hospital immediately. Water was thrown indiscriminately by the fire fighters both on the factory and residential building. As stated some upper floors had already collapsed due to fire and during fire fighting operation entire factory building got collapsed. The exact time of building collapse could not be ascertained. The dead bodies of the owner and his son were recovered from the ground floor. The fire at both the houses were controlled and totally extinguished by 1700 hrs. on 11.11.1996.
According to them, the probable cause and analysis of fire is as under:
The exact cause of the fire could not be ascertained. The initiation of fire could be due to any one of the following reasons:
.(i). fire crackers;
.(ii). lighted discarded ends of bidi or cigarette;
.(iii). electrical reasons.
Initiation of fire could be due to fire crackers as 10th November, 1996 was Diwali. But, from the discussions with the insurance officials it was learnt that fire crackers is totally banned in Punjab and as such in Ludhiana also there was no celebration with fire crackers. The ban is strictly followed. So, fire due to fire crackers may be ruled out.
They surveyors have also ruled out the second option of lighted discarded ends of bidi or cigarette.
With regard to the third option, they have observed as under:
It is envisaged that fire was initially started due to electrical reasons. It might be possible that inside lights were kept energized as it was Diwali festival. Tube lights with loose electrical wirings were available all over in the 3rd and 4th floor above the flat machines. Therefore, there are reasons to believe that electrical short circuit could be the cause of the initiation of fire which ultimately ignited the combustible woolen materials kept in the floors.
It is also envisaged that fire might have initiated either at 3rd or 4th floor. The fire was detected only when it took a devastating shape and upper floors collapsed. As there was no high level ventilators in the building, so building collapsed very soon and entire building was involved in fire. There was also no opening in three sides of the building as it was attached with other buildings, so flames leaped outside only from the front side and set the residential building cum factory premises also in fire, which was located just in front of factory. It is presumed that constructional feature of the residential building that is the provision of central shaft vented the hot layers and saved the building from collapsing, though fire might have spread to other floors through shaft and stair well.
Moreover, sufficient fire tenders could not be put in service to combat the fire due to non-availability of parking place, which further delayed the control fire.
This survey report supports the case of the complainant that the fire was accidental and that it may be due to electric short circuit and the building collapsed because there were no high level ventilators in the building and there was no other opening in the three sides, so flames leaped outside only from the front side and set the residential building cum factory premises also on fire.
Findings:
(a) From the aforesaid survey reports, in our view, there is no reason for us to differ from the opinion expressed by the Joint Surveyors, namely, M/s. J.B. Boda Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. and Thapar, Sriniwasan and Kapoor Pvt. Ltd. They have specifically observed that Deepawali night is traditionally celebrated by lighting fire crackers/candles. These are lit in an indiscriminate fashion, and a stray rocket could have landed on the roof of the factory, igniting any of the stocks present there and spread thereafter, to the rest of the building and thereafter to the residential premises. They also specifically stated that in the light of the tragic demise of the two principal Directors of the Company, malicious intent was ruled out and in the ultimate analysis they stated that the fire was accidental in origin, and, in all probability, cased by a misdirected fire cracker, on an electric short circuit.
(b) However, learned counsel for the Insurance Company seeks reliance on the report dated 5.1.1998 of the Investigator, Vardhaman & Co.
That report appears to be imaginary and vague. The observations that as the factory was not working on that day, generator must not have been used and therefore, the blast of generator set was not accidental. This reasoning cannot be said to be justified because on Deepavalai day, for maintaining electric light, generator set could have been used. However, it is to be stated that in their final report, they stated that We wish to state that as Chartered accountants, we do not have any judicial/non-judicial power and we could not go beyond certain limits.
If this is their stand, then the report is of no consequence. Further they doubted the bona fides of bank officials and statutory auditors of the insured. In our view, this is totally baseless and without any foundation. In any set of circumstances, the Investigators gave vague report stating that to obtain legally enforceable evidence it was possible only for the investigating agency of the central Government. Therefore, this report is of no consequence.
(c) Next, Dinesh Gopal & Co., Engineers, Surveyors, Consultants & Investigators, specifically held that the Insurance Company had already discharged its liability towards the insureds partly by entertaining and making payment in respect of Private Accident claims of both the deceased directors who lost their lives in the said fire. They rightly observed that civil authorities did not suspect it as a created fire or else the matter obviously enquired by them further. This has not been done. Despite this observation, they observed that they were inclined to doubt that the remotest chance of this fire could have been because of reasons beyond control of the directors who unfortunately became the victims of the said fire and also they could not rule out possibility of occurrence of fire deliberately by the insured to overcome their financial problems. They also observed that no direct supporting evidence including eye witness was available. This report would not help the Insurance Company.
(d) The fourth Surveyor, M/s. Rajesh Nakara & Co., Chartered Accountants, Surveyors & Loss Assessors frankly admitted that they could not point out exact cause of fire.
(e) Apart from this, there is survey report from M/s. Loss Prevention Association of India Ltd., New Delhi, admittedly from independent body, wherein they stated that the family members were rescued with great difficulty as fire by that time had engulfed entire building. Most of the family members had received severe burn injuries and were taken to hospital immediately.. They specifically stated that the exact cause of fire could not be ascertained. But the initiation of fire could be due to fire crackers as 10th November, 1996 was Deepavali. At the same time they observed that there were reasons to believe that electrical short circuit could be the cause of the initiation of fire which ultimately ignited the combustible woolen materials kept in the floors. As there was no high level ventilators in the building, so building collapsed very soon and the entire building was engulfed in fire. There was also no opening on three sides of the building as it was attached with other buildings, so flames leaped outside only from the front side and set the residential building-cum-factory premises also in fire.
Considering the aforesaid survey and investigators report, in our view, it is difficult to doubt the joint surveyors report -
M/s.
J.B. Boda Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. and Thapar, Sriniwasan and Kapoor Pvt. Ltd.
Apart from the aforesaid reasons, in our view, it is highly improper on the part of the Insurance Co. to go on appointing surveyors/investigators one after another.
Quantum of Compensation:
The next question is assessment of loss suffered by the Complainants.
In the present case, the learned counsel for the parties have not raised any dispute with regard to the loss assessed by the Surveyors covered by the various policies taken by the insured. Therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the statements given by the Surveyors in detail for directing the Insurance Company to reimburse the complainants for the loss suffered. We make it clear that we are directing the Insurance Company to reimburse the Complainants only on the basis of the net loss assessed by the Joint Surveyors, namely, M/s. J.B. Boda Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. and Thapar, Sriniwasan and Kapoor Pvt. Ltd. because the other investigators have not assessed the loss suffered by the Complainants.
The loss assessed in respect of various policies , is given in tabular form as under:O.P. No.250/1998
S. No. Report Dated Property insured Policy No. Loss Assessed (Rs.)
1. 06.09.1997 Personal belongings 200801-48-32-062-96 8,75,000/-
Total 8,75,000/-
O.P. No.50/1999S. No. Report Dated Property insured Policy No. Loss Assessed (Rs.)
1. 06.09.1997 Factory building 200801-11-13-075-96 8,83,469/-
2. 06.09.1997 Factory building 200801-11-13-074-96 9,78,795/-
3. 20.09.1997 Machinery 200801-11-13-0149-96 3,54,663/-
4. 16.01.1998 Stocks
a) 200801-11-13-3018-95
b) 200801-11-13-148-96
c) 200801-11-13-013-96
d) 200801-11-13-3063-96
e) 200801-11-13-291-96 50,12,710/-
5. 20.09.1997 Computer programming 200801-44-11-91-96 2,87,500/-
TOTAL 75,17,137 In the result, the Insurance Company is directed to pay within a period of six weeks from the date of this order:
(a) Rs.8,75,000/- to the Complainants, in Original Petition No. 250/1998, and
(b) Rs.75,17,137/- in Original Petition No.50/1999.
The Insurance shall also pay interest @ 12% per annum from 1st January, 1998 i.e. after three months from the date of the Survey Report of the Joint Surveyors , M/s. J.B. Boda Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. and Thapar, Srinivasan and Kapoor Pvt. Ltd., which is after six months from the date of the fire, on the aforesaid amounts of Rs. 8,75,000/- and Rs.75,17,137/- respectively.
The Insurance Company is directed to pay costs quantified at Rs.25,000/- in Original Petition No. 250/1998, and Rs.75,000/- in Original Petition No.50/1999, to the Complainants. The Original Petitions are disposed accordingly.
The Registry is directed to send a copy of this Order to the Chairman of the United India Insurance Company Ltd for issuing directions to the concerned Officers that in future they should not adopt such unfair trade practice.
Sd/-
..J (M.B. SHAH) PRESIDENT Sd/-
(RAJYALAKSHMI RAO) MEMBER Sd/-
(P.D. SHENOY) MEMBER