State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mohd. Ashraf vs Oico. on 28 April, 2011
J&K STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAMMU Quoram: Honble Mr., Justice (Retd) G.D.Sharma, .President Mr. B.L.Saraf .....Member
Complaint No: - 2770/2006 Date of Institute: -20.04.2006 Date of Decision: - 28.04.2011
1. Mohd. Ashraf S/O Allaha Ditta R/O Batli, Udhampur
2. Sh. Bushan Thakur S/O Sh.
C/O Shamboo Oil, Shop No. 12, Yard No.4 Narwal, Jammu Both C/O International Stone Crusher, Udhampur Complainants Versus
1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Regd. Office Oriental House PB No.7037 A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi through its Chairman
2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Dhar Road Branch, Udhampur Through its Branch Manager
3. Arun Kumar and Co.
Surveyors and Loss Assessors 556, AIR Lane near All India Radio Jhalandhar city, Punjab Through its Incharge office OPs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counsel for the parties Mr. R.P.Sharma advocate for the Complainants.
Mr. Sunil Malhotra advocate for the OPs.
__________________________________________________________________________ Whether to be reported in press /MediaYes Whether to be reported in Digest/Journal.Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per Justice G.D.Sharma
1. The complainant in this case is a Firm known by the name and style of M/S Mohd. Ashraf Bushan Thakur Batli Udhampur which has its Banch Office at 12/4 Transport Nagar, Jammu. Vide invoice no. 8225, dated 08.05.2001, the complainants purchased one Hydraulic L&T 72Ck, S.No.-K 0393 with 4.2M Boom, 2.0M, stick, 650L Backactor bucket (Hereinafter to be referred to as Excavator). It was purchased from its manufacturer namely, Kamatsu Limited for a consideration of Rs.26,50,000/- and on 19.01.2005 was insured with OPs 1 and 2 under Insurance Policy no. 262102 which had to expire on 18.01.2006. The insured peril was to the tune of Rs. 15 lac. The case of the complainants is that on 12.03.2005, the Excavator was given on hire services at a Brick Kiln situated at Neeli Nallah at Jib Thathi Road, Udhampur for doing the work of cutting earth soil. While it was engaged a mount of earth caved on its body and substantial damage was caused. The incident was reported in Police Station Rembhal and simultaneously claim was raised with OPs 1 and 2. Mr. Mahesh Badyal surveyor and loss assessor was dispatched by OPs 1 and 2 to investigate the incident. He made a survey and apprised OP no.1 and 2 about the factual position. Photographs were also taken by him. The complainants too had taken the photographs at their own. OPs 1 and 2 had instructed the complainants not to undertake any repair work till the final surveyor and loss assessor from Jallender arrives and makes assessment of loss. At the same time OP no.2 had allowed the complainants to get the damage assessed at their own. On the basis of that authority, the complainants approached Suchitra Sales Pvt. Ltd. at Chandigarh, who is authorized dealers of the manufacturer. They deputed Mr. Anil Yadav service engineer to assess the loss. On 13.03.2005, Anil Yadav inspected the Excavator and assessed the damaged components. His assessment report recorded the estimated loss to the tune of Rs.6,52,615/-. On 17.03.2005, OPs no.1 and 2 appointed Mr. Arun Kumar of the Firm M/S Arun Kumar and Co. of Jallender city as surveyor and loss assessor. The complainants have impleaded him as OP no.3 in the complaint.
The complainants had provided him all the relevant documents regarding the actual loss which they had obtained on the direction of Suchitra Sales Pvt. Ltd. engineer. On his directions, the complainants got the Excavator repaired.
On 04.07.2005, to the surprise of the complainants OP no.2 informed them that their claim had been termed as No. Claim. OP no.3 had acted in a malafide manner as he had not considered the bills regarding the purchase price of the replaced parts as well as expenses incurred for getting the repairs done. The complainants had actually spent Rs.5,11,212/- for the restoration of the Excavator to its original position. The reliefs claimed by the complainant are:-
a. Reimbursement of the actual loss actually to the tune of Rs.6.50 lac.
b. Compensation on account of mental agony and hardships Rs. 2 lac.
c. Compensation for loss of business Rs. 3 lac.
2. OPs 1 and 2 in their written version have contested the claim. While admitting the currency of the Insurance Policy, they have pleaded that complainants have put up an inflated claim because the loss assessor and surveyor Mr. Arun Kumar has rightly assessed the loss vide his report dated 04.06.2005 to the extent of Rs.24,475/-. That in the Insurance Policy there was excess clause of Rs.25,000/-
(actually Rs.15,000/-). That on the basis of excess clause no amount was found due to the complainants and as such their claim was treated as No claim.
However, it is admitted that there was a mistake regarding the amount of excess clause in the objections and the loss payable to the complainants is to the extent of Rs.9,475/- which the OPs are prepared to pay.
3. In support of the complaint, one of the complainants namely, Mohd. Ashraf has deposed on affidavit and he was cross examined. They have examined Vijay Kumar and Rakesh Singh engineer of the Firm Suchitra Sales Pvt. Ltd. as witnesses.
OPs no.1 and 2 have examined Loss assessor and surveyor Mr. Arun Kumar as well as Mr. Mahesh Badyal and Mr. Duni Singh Motten Branch Manager as their witnesses.
Complainant Mohd. Ashraf in his affidavit has corroborated the allegations made in the complaint and has further stated that on 13.03.2005, Mr. Anil Yadav Service Engineer was deputed by Suchitra Sales Pvt. Ltd. to estimate the loss. The latter Firm is the authorized dealer of the Firm K&J Kamatsu who manufacture the brand of Excavator in question. The Excavator was purchased from Suchitra Sales Pvt. Ltd. He admits that on the day of occurrence, the preliminary surveyor Mr. Mahesh Badyal had visited the spot. That when service engineer of Suchitra Sales Pvt. Ltd. namely, Anil Yadav inspected the damaged excavator, OPs no.1 and 2 were not called.
Vijay Kumar witness of the complainants has stated that he is the owner of Trikuta Brick Kiln and had hired the services of the complainants for carrying the excavation and soil cutting works at the site of his Brick Kiln. In his presence, a mount of earth caved in on the excavator and extensive damage was caused which could be seen by the naked eye. The cabin assembly and engine block were completely damaged. The Boom Buckets were structurally damaged. In cross examination, he admits that he had not read the contents of his affidavit.
Mr. Rakesh Singh witness of the complainants is an engineer by profession and works with the authorized dealer firm of the manufacturer of the excavator namely, Suchitra Sales Pvt. Ltd. Chandigarh. His employer had deputed Mr. Anil Yadav service engineer to asses the loss. That the bills regarding the purchase of the spare parts which were replaced by the complainants from his employer (Suchitra Sales Pvt. Ltd.) and the subsist charges are on the record. In cross examination, he admitted that neither he had seen the damaged machine nor was working with his employer Suchitra Sales Pvt. Ltd. at the time when service engineer Anil Yadav had visited the spot.
Arun Kumar surveyor and loss assessor has stated that on 17.03.2005, he went on spot and inspected the damaged excavator. He had requested the complainants (insured) to call the service engineer Mr. Anil Yadav for discussion but they did not produce him. However, they produced one broken engine block and stated that they already had got the damaged excavator repaired. That on 17.05.2005, he came for the second time to inspect the Excavator and found that Excavator was functioning properly at Nagrota. He did not find the complainants on spot but their employee Mangal Singh had told him that the services of the Excavator were being utilized for the last one month. He admitted that cabin assy as well as turret structure were repaired and he gave his estimate of the repair cost to the extent of Rs.24,475/-.
That on thorough investigation made by him it was found that no replacement or dismantling of the engine had been done but the complainants were trying to exaggerate the amount of the claim by producing one damaged block. In cross examination, he admits that the photographs taken by the preliminary investigator/surveyor Mr. Mahesh Badyal were shown to him alongwith other details. All this, he has mentioned in his report. He further clarifies that he has not made only any mention about Mr. Mahesh Badyals report in his report. Neither has he disagreed with the report submitted by Mr. Mahesh Badyal preliminary surveyor. He further stated that on the day of his visit (i.e. on 17.03.2006), he asked the complainants to bring, one repair mechanic on spot and get the machine repaired in his presence. That in his report, he has mentioned the extent of damages caused to the excavator and the assessment made by him.
He admits that the complainants had produced before him the estimate of damages suffered by the excavator which were prepared by the service engineer of the authorized dealer namely, Suchitra Sales Pvt. Ltd. He admits that on 17.03.2005, he had taken the photographs of the damaged excavator which he had submitted before OPs no. 1 and 2 but are not found on the record of the case. He admits that after 17.03.2005, he never visited Udhampur to see the damaged excavator. That he had sent some letters through registered post which were not replied. He could not produce any record of those communications. He admits that it is the duty of the surveyor to remain in touch with the insured and visit the spot during repair works of the alleged damaged machinery. He also admits that he had taken the photographs of the excavator when it had been put to operation after the repairs at the site of Nagrota. He is categorical in stating that no bills regarding the repairs were produced before him by the complainants. Finally, he admitted that the purchase of spare parts and the repairing of the damaged machinery is a costly affair.
Mr. Dhuni Singh Motten was the Branch manager Udhampur of the Insurance Company who has been impleaded as OP no.2.
He has supported the written version filed by the Insurer and corrected the mistake by deposing that in case of first loss, an amount of Rs.15,000/- has to be deducted by way of excess clause and not Rs.25,000/-.
That the amount payable to the complainants are Rs.9,475/- (Nine Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Five) which the OPs are prepared to pay.
Mr. Mahesh Badyal witness of OPs 1 and 2 admits that he conducted the spot inspection and surveyed the loss.
On spot the complainants representative had represented before him that while excavating earth suddenly a compact mass of earth fall on the machine which caused damage. According to him, since a mass of earth had fallen on the machine, hence its engine had not suffered any damages, however, the machine had suffered the damages which have been noted down by him in his report and they were considered by M/S Arun Kumar the surveyor and loss assessor. He has placed a copy of his survey report on the record. In cross examination, he stated that in his report he has written about the damages which were apparently visible on the excavator, however, the exact nature of the damages could be assessed after dismantling the machine in question. The external damages were suggestive of the damages having been inflicted on the inside of machine also. He had also submitted the photographs of the machine showing damages on spot which were submitted to the insurer alongwith his report but those photographs were not seen by him in the Commission at the time of his deposition. He admits that he was not sure about the appointment of Mr. Arun Kumar surveyor and loss assessor and he had not associated him. He has no knowledge whether the damages which he had noticed were brought to the notice of the final surveyor and loss assessor Mr. Arun Kumar or not.
4. Heard the arguments.
Mr. R.P.Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the complainants has contended that the incident took place on 12.03.2005 and on the same day information was laid before OP no.2. The OPs on the same day i.e. on 12.03.2005 had sent Mr. Mahesh Badyal, loss assessor and surveyor as preliminary surveyor to visit the spot. He visited the spot on the same day and noticed the extensive damages caused to the machinery part of the Excavator. He has mentioned those damages in his report dated 21.03.2005. He has been examined as a witness by OPs no. 1 and 2. Ops no.1 and 2 had asked the complainants to get the loss assessed at their own and immediately they approached M/S Suchitra Sales Pvt. Ltd. Authorized Dealers of L&T Construction Equipment, Chandigarh and they in turn deputed Mr. Anil Yadav, their service engineer to assess the loss caused to the Excavator. The service engineer inspected the damaged Excavator on 13.03.2005 and assessed the damaged components of the Excavator. He prepared a detailed list of the damaged components of the Excavator and then on the next date i.e. on 14.03.2005 furnished quotations of their cost price totaling Rs.6,52,615/-. OPs no.1 and 2 had instructed the complainants not to get the damaged machinery repaired till the survey is conducted by the surveyor appointed by them. On this assurance, the complainants did not affect any repairs and OPs no.1 and 2 appointed Arun Kumar and Co. loss assessor and surveyor (OP no. 3 in the complaint) to assess the loss. Mr. Arun Kumar and CO. surveyor and loss assessor visited the site on 17.03.2005 and inspected the damaged Excavator. He gave green signal to the complainants for affecting repairs. Mr. Arun Kumar and Co (OP no.3) was furnished by the complainants the list of damaged components of Excavator and their price obtained through quotations by service engineer M/S Suchitra Sales Pvt. Ltd.
Photographs of the damaged Excavator were also provided to him. The complainants spent an amount of Rs.5,11,212/- for affecting repairs and that amount was claimed from OP no. 1 and 2. The claim was supported with the bills for the purpose of replacing new equipment as well as repairs costs. During the time when repairs were being affected, OP no.3 never visited the site where the damaged Excavator was kept. These bills were not accepted by the OPs no. 1 and 2 as well as by OP no.3 for settling the claim and the complainants were compelled to file the complaint when they received a letter dated 04.07.2005, whereby the claim was treated as No Claim. The decision was taken on the basis of the assessed amount of Rs.24,475/- mentioned in the report of Mr. Arun Kumar surveyor who had wrongly deducted Rs.25,000/- by applying excess clause contained in the Insurance Policy instead of Rs.15,000/-. The factual mistake was corrected by stating that amount of excess clause was Rs.15,000/- and not Rs.25,000/-. An offer was made to the complainants to accept the balance amount of Rs.9,475/-. Continuing his arguments, the learned counsel has contended that the genuine claim has been denied to the complainants with biased pre-determined opinion without taking into consideration the report of Mr. Mahesh Badyal who as authorized spot surveyor immediately visited the site on same day i.e. on 12.03.2005 and in his report had admitted the extensive apparent damages caused to the various parts of the machine as mentioned at page no.2 of his affidavit.. Mr. Mahesh Badyal as a witness, in his affidavit has stated that, suddenly a compact mass of earth fell on the machine which caused the damage. On this observation, he drew the conclusion that engine of the Excavator had not suffered any damage but only the machine had suffered the damages. The statement made on affidavit is not in confirmity with the report submitted by him wherein he has mentioned the extensive damages. In cross-examination, he has admitted that the impact of the damage was so great that internal damage was also caused to the machine. He has clearly admitted that he was not associated at any time with Mr. Arun Kumar surveyor and loss assessor. He is not even sure for the appointment of Mr. Arun Kumar surveyor and has no knowledge whether the damages which had had pointed out in his report were brought to the notice of Arun Kumar surveyor. or not. Mr. Arun Kumar loss assessor and surveyor visited the spot only once (i.e. on 17.03.2005) and during the time when the repairs were affected, he never came to inspect the damaged Excavator. Mr. Arun Kumar was categorical in stating that the complainants had tried to exaggerate the amount of their claim by producing one broken engine block and pleaded before him that before his visit, they had got the same replaced by a new one. That the spot surveyor Mr. Mahesh Badyal had not observed any damage caused to the engine. Mr. Arun Kumar surveyor in his cross-examination has stated that Mr. Mahesh Badyal had provided him the photographs accompanied by the details of the damages noticed by him during his spot visit but Mr. Mahesh Badyal has contradicted him by stating that he never met him. As per the deposition of Mr. Arun Kumar surveyor, he had taken the photographs of damaged Excavator on 17.03.2005 and later on they were handed over by him to OPs 1 and 2 but they are not found on the record. Mr. Arun Kumar surveyor has admitted that he has made no mention of Mahesh Badyals report in his report. On his second visit to Nagrota, he had found that damaged Excavator in fully operative condition and he had taken its photographs but they are not on the record. He has also admitted that the purchase of spare parts and effecting repairs of the machine is a costly affair.
There is no documentary proof of Mr. Arun Kumar surveyors visit to the spot. Mr. Arun Kumar surveyor in the capacity of OP no.3 has sent a letter dated 13.07.2007 in the Commission and in Para no.2 of the same has stated that on 17.03.2005, the insured was advised to start repairs of the other damaged parts and in this regard, he was further advised to give us opportunity to inspect the machine in repair phase. From this admission made by him in the letter, it is proved that the complainants had started the repairs of the damaged Excavator under his instruction and as such they were entitled to the indemnification of the actual cost incurred by them but the said surveyor has not taken into consideration the estimated costs of the repairs. His final report does not record anything with regard to the actual inspection made by him of the damaged parts as well as the cost to be incurred on the repairs etc. He has taken note of the estimated loss submitted by the complainants provided to them by service engineer of Suchitra Sales Pvt. Ltd.
and at random, he had disallowed almost all the claims raised in the estimated loss and in a casual manner arbitrarily assessed the loss at Rs.20,525/-. All this shows that he is not a qualified engineer. He should have disallowed the items of the claim by assigning reasons and not other-wise. While concluding his arguments, he has submitted that the genuine claim of the complainants has been frustrated with some design in order to deprive them regarding the alleged loss.
5. In rebuttal, Mr. Sunil Malhotra, the learned counsel appearing for the OPs has submitted that complainants have not examined their material witness namely, Anil Yadav who according to them had inspected the damaged Excavator on 13.03.2005 and prepared the list of estimated loss on the basis of which the expenses were incurred for the purchase of spare parts from authorized dealer M/S Suchitra Sales Pvt. Ltd. nor they have examined any-body as a witness on behalf of M/S Suchitra Sales Pvt. Ltd. to prove the fact that the spare parts were purchased according to the bills issued by them. In Para no 13 of the complaint actual expenses incurred are shown at Rs.5,11,212/- for expenses incurred to affect the repairs but estimated lost with documentary proof of bills for the purchase of spare parts from Suchitra Sales Pvt. Ltd. is shown to the tune of Rs.6,52,615/-. Mr. Mahesh Badyal spot surveyor had submitted his preliminary report regarding the spot inspection on 21.03.2005 to the OPs. After the appointment of Mr. Mahesh Badyal as preliminary surveyor final surveyor Mr. Arun Kumar was deputed to assess the loss. He visited the site on 17.03.2005 and inspected the damaged Excavator. Both the surveyors have reported that it was only machine of the Excavator which had suffered the loss and not the engine.
Mr. Mahesh Badyal spot surveyor is categorical in stating in his deposition that the engine had not suffered any loss but only the machine had been damaged. There was no bar for him to say so in his evidence as by disclosing this fact the contents of his report are not contradicted. Mr. Arun Kumar final surveyor has also supported him that it was only the machine part which had suffered the damage not the engine part. Correctly he has disallowed the estimated claims of the complainants which all were relating to the repairs/replacement of the engine parts. He has rightly calculated the damages and applied the excess clause as per the condition of the Policy which OPs no. 1 and 2 admitted that it was only to the extent of Rs.15,000/- and not R.25,000/- as stated by the surveyor.
Mr. Arun Kumar surveyor has been issued license under the provisions of Insurance Act and he is a qualified engineer. Being a competent authority he made the assessment in a dispassionate and fair manner. His report has great evidentiary value unless proved tainted one. The complainants are not fair in their conduct as they have submitted the bills regarding the purchase of spare parts some of which are even prior in time to the alleged accident and some relate to that period, when the Excavator had become fully functional
6. We have considered the respective contentions of the counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the record.
The alleged damage was caused to the insured Excavator on 12.03.2005 and the spot surveyor appointed by OPs 1 and 2 had reached there on the same day. He noted down the apparent visible damages caused to the Excavator. The word used by him in his report as well as reiterated in his affidavit is machine which in the given circumstances signifies the Excavator. The damages were caused by a sudden fall of mass of earth on the machine (means Excavator).
In his affidavit the spot surveyor Mr. Mahesh Badyal has given the explanation that since the mass of earth had fallen on the machine (Excavator) so the engine had not suffered the damages. He gave an account of the damages in seriatum in his report dated 21.03.2005 and they are six in number. He had left the option open for the parties to get detected any other damage after dismantling the body of the machine (Excavator). He had inspected the damaged Excavator in the presence of complainant no.1. OP no.3 Mr. Arun Kumar was appointed by OP no.1 and 2 to assess the loss. He visited the spot on 17.03.2005 in the presence of complainant no.1 and also perused the assessment report on spot which was prepared by M/S Suchitra Sales Pvt. Ltd. Chandigarh at the request of the complainants. This fact has been reflected by him at internal page no.2 against entries 9 and 10 of his assessment report dated 04.06.2005. At page no.3 of his report, it is stated that Insured had demanded replacement of new assembles such as cabin, turret etc. He was asked to call the person who had repaired it for discussion and settlement of the loss which he failed to produce. On the contrary, complainant Mohd. Ashraf produced a broken engine block and stated that the complainants had got the same replaced by new one prior to the visit of the surveyor. The surveyor inspected the fitted engine and did not find out any replacement/dismantling carried out.
According to the surveyor, it was a manipulated loss in order to get exaggerated amount of the claim. On his second visit on 17.05.2005, he had found the Excavator in working order at Nagrota and had noticed that cabin assy as well as turret structure was repaired. He had taken the photographs which he produced in the Commission on 17.09.2007 alongwith reply filed to the complaint as OP no.3. In this reply, he has stated that on 17.03.2005, complainant no.1 was advised by him to start repair of the other damaged parts but he should provide him the opportunity to inspect the Excavator under repair phase. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the complainants had not produced the repair bills before him which were very much referred by the learned counsel in his arguments to advance the case of the complainants.
On the perusal of the repair bills, it is found that most of them are fabricated with the dominant intention of grabbing more money from OPs 1 and 2. As instances, bill against item no.1 is dated 15.02.2005 when the alleged accident had not taken place. Bill no.2 is dated 17.05.2005 when Mr. Arun Kumar surveyor had visited the Excavator in question while working at a site in Nagrota and had been repaired. Similar is the case of bill against item no. 3 4 and 5. Bill no. 10,11 and 13 are of the month of June 2005. Bill no. 21 is regarding the month of February 2005. In this way, it is found that majority of the bills had been obtained in order to inflate the amount to the tune of Rs.5,11,212/- in a fraudulent manner. Mr. Arun Kumar surveyor is categorical in stating that the engine of the Excavator had not suffered any damage. His version is fully supported by the certificate of Mr. Mahesh Badyal preliminary surveyor who has listed visible six damages in his report and had given option to the insured to get the machinery dismantled in case more damages were to be claimed. The burden was on the complainants to do so but they floated the direction of the loss assessor and surveyor Mr. Arun Kumar and Co. who had asked them on 17.03.2005 that while affecting the repairs, he may be associated in the process but in order to defraud him, complainant Mohd. Ashraf had produced a broken engine block on 17.03.2005 and stated before him that the same had been replaced by a new one. The surveyor had inspected the fitted engine and had not found out any replacement/dismantling. Mr. Mahesh Badyal preliminary surveyor is an independent witness and his evidence is of more credulous nature as he had visited the spot on the date of the accident. His observations have been supported by the loss assessor and surveyor. At one stage, Mr. Arun Kumar surveyor and loss assessor has given an irresponsible statement that he had consulted Mr. Mahesh Badyal which fact has been denied by the latter. Undoubtedly, it cannot be ruled out that he may have seen the report dated 31.03.2005 prepared by Mr. Mahesh Badyal who already had submitted the same before OP no.2 (Branch Manager). We may state here that under the Consumer Protection Act, the Fora have been created for the protection of the legal rights of genuine and bonafide consumers and not that of unscrupulous consumers who come for enriching themselves considering that Consumer Fora are money minting counters. The Commission undoubtedly is a court of equity; therefore we strongly condemn such an attempt. We find that the report of Arun Kumar and Co. surveyor (annexure C) cannot be wholly discarded except the patent mistakes which are glaring at its face. On the basis of assessment report, he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.19,000/- for labour charges and the cost of repaired parts/new parts were to the tune of Rs.10,950/-. This part of the report is totally correct.
However, he had deducted a sum of Rs.5,475/- for depreciation and Rs.45,000/- towards excess clause. The net loss assessed by him was at Rs.20,525/- but in the negative form which means that the complainants were not entitled to any indemnification. The deductions made of Rs.5.475/- and Rs.45,000/- were wrong because there could be no depreciation of the replaced parts or the substitution of brand new in place of damaged parts. It is the lawful duty of the insured OP to reimburse actual loss.
The total loss assessed by the surveyor was to the extent of Rs.29,950/- but in his opinion, the damage caused to the Excavator was not more than the value of Rs.24,475/-. Admittedly, for the excess clause, an amount of Rs.15,000/- has to be deducted. In this view of the matter, we allow the complaint and direct OPs 1 and 2 to make a payment of Rs.14,950/- (Rs.29,950 minus Rs.15,000) towards the indemnification of the actual damages suffered by the insured Excavator alongwith interest @ 8% per annum after two months from 04.06.2005 till the payment is made. We observe with dismay that even OPs 1 and 2 have failed to scrutinize the report of Mr. Arun Kumar surveyor who had deducted Rs.45,000/- towards the value of excess clause. This was insurers statutory duty that the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy are perused and then observed at every point of time. The complainants are also entitled to litigation expenses in the sum of Rs.3,000/-. Accordingly, the complaint is consigned to records.
Member President