National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Mehta Wool Store on 3 July, 2007
Equivalent citations: III(2007)CPJ317(NC)
ORDER
P.D. Shenoy, Member
1. The complainant Mehta Wool Store, Yamunanagar obtained insurance cover from the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Yamunanagar against theft and fire from 17.4.1997 to 16.4.1998. There was a fire accident on 11.7.1997 which destroyed insured stock causing loss to the complainant. The complainant immediately lodged FIR and also informed the Insurance Company, which appointed a Surveyor.
2. It is the say of the complainant that though the loss was much more than Rs. 1,17,040 the Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 47,664 only, which was the amount offered to the complainant by the Insurance Company. The complainant did not accept this offer. He filed a complaint before District Forum, Yamunanagar claiming Rs. 99,097 along with 18% interest with Rs. 20,000 compensation for mental agony, etc. and Rs. 2,500 as costs.
3. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint awarding a sum of Rs. 47,664 with interest © 18% w.e.f. 3.10.1997 along with Rs. 15,000 as compensation and Rs. 500 as costs.
4. Dissatisfied by the order of the District Forum both parties filed cross-appeals. The complainant claimed grant of full amount of Rs. 99,097 whereas the Insurance Company prayed for reduction in the rate of interest and omitting compensation and costs, etc.
5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case the State Commission allowed the appeal of the complainant and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs. 99,097 along with 18% interest from 11.7.1997 (date of the fire accident) with Rs. 20,000 as compensation for mental harassment and agony and Rs. 2,000 as costs. The State Commission dismissed the appeal of the Insurance Company.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, Insurance Company has filed this revision petition.
Findings:
7. Though the Insurance Company did not give the copy of the Surveyor's report to the complainant, it had filed the same before the District Forum, which gave adequate opportunity to the complainant to challenge the veracity of the report. The complainant did not choose to file any objection to the survey report before the District Forum. When the matter came up for admission before the National Commission on 15.2.1999, the Counsel for the petitioner had undertaken to comply with the order passed by the District Forum. The National Commission has granted a stay subject to the compliance of the order of the District Forum, by the Insurance Company.
8. The complainant has not led any cogent evidence before the District Forum or the State Commission to nullify the report of the Surveyor or to prove that Surveyor has grossly underestimated the loss. The State Commission in its order has observed as follows:
After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we are of the considered view, that complainant has successfully established on record, deficiency in service on the part of Insurance Company. In fact, deficiency in service stands proved and has been corroborated by the fact that without any cogent reason, the Insurance Company has not released the amount claimed by the complainant so far and has only insisted upon the payment of amount assessed by the Surveyor, The Insurance Company has not produced any evidence on record on the basis of which it could be argued that the loss suffered by the complainant was not actually Rs. 99,097 which figure was agreed to the complainant, only to avoid delay in settlement of the claim.
9. In our view, the reverse logic adopted by the State Commission in the above analysis has no basis. The Surveyors are independent assessors and their report has to be given due importance and weightage unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It is not correct to say that Insurance Company has not produced any evidence on record to show that the loss suffered by the complainant was not actually Rs. 99,097. The Surveyor's report itself is an evidence produced by the Insurance Company to show that the loss incurred was to the tune of Rs. 47,664. It is for the complainant to prove that he had suffered higher loss, which he has failed to do so. Accordingly, we feel that the direction of the State Commission to the Insurance Company to pay Rs. 99,097 along with 18% interest thereon from the date of the fire, is illogical.
10. Therefore, we set aside this part of the order of the State Commission enhancing the compensation amount from Rs. 47,664 with 18% interest to Rs. 99,097 with 18% interest. As there has been an abnormal delay on the part of the Insurance Company to pay the assessed amount by the Surveyor, we see no ground to interfere with the rest of the order of the State Commission.