State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Maa Vijaya Traders vs Universal Sompo General Insurance ... on 2 December, 2022
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION,ODISHA,CUTTACK
C.C.Case NO. 55 OF 2011
M/s Maa Vijaya Traders, a
Proprietorship concern at Meria Bazar,
Po - Buxi Bazar, Cuttack - 753001,
being represented by its sole Proprietor
Biswa Ranjan Behera
... Complainant
Vrs.
1. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co.Ltd. having its
Corporate Office At A -201, Crystal Plaza, Opp. Infinity
Mall, Oshiwara Link Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai - 400
058, being represented by its Managing Director
2. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Kolkata Branch, having its office at Block - A, Express
Towers, 7th Floor, 42 - A Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata -
700 017 being represented by its Branch Head
3. M/s Universal Sompo General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Bhubaneswar Branch having its office at 1st Floor, 98,
Kharvel. Nagar, Keshari Talkies Complex, Bhubaneswar -
751 001, Orissa, being represented by its Branch Head
4. Allahabad Bank, Cantonment Road Branch, at
Cantonment Road, Po - Buxi Bazar, Cuttack - 753 001,
being represented by its Branch Manager
... Opp.Parties
____________
For the complainant : M/s S.K.Mohanty & Associates
For OP Nos. 1 to 3 : M/s S.Roy & Associates
For OP No. 4 : M/s C.Kasturi & Associates
_____________
2
PRESENT
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.P.CHOUDHURY, PRESIDENT,
DR.P.K.PRUSTY, MEMBER
AND
MISS S.L.PATTNAIK, MEMBER
DATED THE 02nd DECEMBER, 2022
ORDER
MISS S.L.PATTNAIK, MEMBER Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. None appears for the respondent.
3 This Appeal is filed U/S 15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986 (here in after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the Learned District Forum.
4. The brief fact of the case is that, the complainant is a proprietorship firm at Cuttack and has been doing business as a whole sale trader and stockist of fruit product,pickles,spices and other consumable items like soya Bari, papad,incondescent sticks etc. The main office of the complainant is situated at Maria Bazar, Buxibazar,Cuttack,where as the godown for storage and trading of stocks is situated at Tinikonia Baggicha, Makarbag sahi,Buxi Bazar,Cuttack within half Km. from the office. The billing to the customers and cash transactions were being done in the said 3 godown premises and the relevant records/ registers were being maintained there as required by the sales Tax authorities for inspection. The complainant further averred that he had availed a cash credit facilities from the O.P.no.4 with a cash credit limit of Rs.8,50,000/- vide C.C.loan A/C No.231. On 22.04.2008 the complainant requested the O.P.no.4 to enhance the cash credit limit due to increase transaction and the OP No. 4 enhanced to Rs.15,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 21.05.2008, after thorough inspection of the stocks in the godown and other relevant records of the complainant.
5. It is averred that as per terms and conditions of clause-4 of the sanctioned letter dated 21.05.2008 of O.P.no.4 stipulated that the entire stocks will be insured for the full value under comprehensive risk Insurance policy with any unit of GIC in joint names with bank at the borrower's cost.
6. It is further averred that the O.p.no.4 insured the stocks of the complainant with standard Fire and Special perils policy with annual premium of rs.2,517/- vide policy No.2114/50025457/00/00 and with Burglary policy for an annual premium of Rs.4,494/- vide policy No.2913/20025458/00/00. Both the premiums amounting to Rs.7,011/- were directly debited by O.p.no.4 from the cash credit loan account of the complainant on 01.12.2008. it is also averred 4 that the stocks of the complainant was insured to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- ,which was valid for the period from 01.12.2008 to 31.11.2009. The complainant alleged that the Insurance policy bond and documents are with the O.p.no.4. Inspite of several request the O.P.no.4 did not give any policy bond and documents to the complainant stating that the stocks were insured under the said policy and are hypothecated to the bank against the cash credit loan account.
7. On the intervening night of 5.10.2009 and 06.10.2009 at about 2P.M a major fire accident took place in the godown of the complainant situated at Tinikonia Bagicha, Makarbag Sahi, Cuttack and all the stocks and valuable records were completely gutted and destroyed on the same day i.e on 06.10.2009, the complainant informed the local policy and immediately informed the O.Ps about the incident and the O.P.no.1 deputed its authorised surveyor including Er.D.K.Pattnaik of M/S Protocol surveyors & Engineers Pvt.Ltd. The Surveyor visited the spot and surveyed the fire affected godown spot at tinikonia Bagichha, Cuttack on 09.10.2009 and took several photographs. On 09.10.2009 as per instruction of the surveyor, the complainant also filled the "fire Insurance claim Form" and handed over relevant documents to the surveyor of O.P.no.1. In the claim form the 5 estimated loss was mentioned as Rs.17 lakh to Rs.18 lakh . But the said surveyor vide its letter dated 19.10.2009 and 09.12.2009 requested to submit additional documents supporting his claim including the claim form. The complainant further stated that he had lodged FIR at Dargha Bazar P.S bearing station Diary No.143 dated 06.10.2009 on the date of incident and that was handed over to the Surveyor of o.P.no.1 on 09.10.2009 during his first visit to the Fire affected godown but the o0.p.no.2 vide its letter dated 10.12.2009 requested him to lodge FIR in police station. The complainant on 22.12.2009 intimated through a letter to the surveyor and O.P.no.2 and 4 stating that he has submitted most of the documents to Er.D.K.Pattnaik surveyor so more time will be required to submit other documents like Vat and Income Tax return. The complainant also stated that on 28.12.2009 the Er.D.K.Pattnaik and Mr.S.K.Agarwal of M/S Protocol surveyors and engineer Pvt. Ltd again visited the spot and demanded illegal gratification to facilitate the Insurance claim which was intimated by the complainant to M/S Protocol surveyor and Engineer Pvt. Ltd vide his dated 28.12.2009.
8. The complainant stated that on 28.12.2009 the surveyor got the original claim form dated 09.10.2009 corrected by him and estimated loss of Rs.17 lakh - Rs.18.60 lakh and the surveyor took 6 the original claim form along with final claim bill/ stock summery for the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.10.2009 indicating the total stock value in October-2009 as Rs.18,60,169.92/.
9. The complainant vide his letter dated 01.01.2010 submitted some additional documents to O.P.no.1. After several request to O.P.no.4, the O.P.no.4 supplied xerox copies of the Insurance policies which the complainant has enclosed along with letter dated 01.01.2010 and sent to O.P.no.2 and 4. In spite of several request from the complainant ,the O.ps did not take any steps to settle the Insurance claim. The O.P.no.2 vide his letter no.01.04.2010 threatened the complainant to close the matter and treat the same as "No claim". The complainant alleged that he has submitted all the required documents to O.Ps but they did not settled the claim. As a result of which the complainant cannot restart his business and cannot repay the outstanding dues of O.p.no.4.
10. The complainant issued legal notices dated 24.02.2011 and dated 08.04.2011 to the O.P.n.4 to take all necessary steps for settlement of the Insurance claim with the O.P.no.1 . The O.p.no.2 issued a letter on 05.05.2011 to the complainant by raising new plea of location discrepancy with respect to the insured goods of the complainant and asked the complainant to clarify the 7 same as well as to provide detailed claim bill after two years of the incident. The complainant further stated that the O.p.no.1 repudiated the claim on 30.06.2011. So being aggrieved the complainant alleging negligence and fraudulent activities of O.Ps has filed this complaint before the State Commission with a prayer
(a) to direct the O.Ps to compensate the complainant for the losses as per schedule i.e Rs.33,80,169.92 above with interest @ 12% per annum on item no.1of the said schedule from the date of claim made before the O.P.no.1 along with penalities and further interest on the claim amount.
(b) Further direct the O.P.no.4 to waive all penal interest / charges levied on the loan account of the complainant w.e.f 06.10.2009 or alternatively award compensation to the extent of such penal interest / charges.
11. Upon notice being served on the O.Ps appeared and filed their written versions. The O.ps no.1 and 2 filed their written version jointly through their counsel. The learned counsel for O.P no.1,2 and 3 stated that the complaint petition is not maintainable because the complainant doing his business for re-sale of goods and for commercial purpose, so he is not a consumer. The O.Ps further stated that once the claim was repudiated by the insurer, after through scrutiny of the documents, the complainant cannot 8 take advantage of the Consumer Protection Act for redressal of his grievance. The O.Ps also stated that the policy in question was issued to cover pickle and spice packing powder etc, where as the complainant was storing large quantity of combustible materials like agarbati which is not covered under the policy.The O.Ps denied the allegations made in the complaint petition. The O.Ps stated that the location mentioned in the policy is different from the location of actual loss. Although the insured was in possession of the policy for the last 11 months but did not inform the company about change of new location. The loan account of the complainant had been termed as "NPA" in June-2009 due to non payment of interest. The complainants banker had conducted stock inspection on 05.09.2009 and their report , the value of stock lying with the insured was Rs.3,00,000/- and the date of loss is 06.10.2009. Therefore, the claim of the complainant about holding a stock of Rs.18,60,000/- is false and not supported by purchase of bills, corresponding payments etc and also the independent surveyor would not rely upon the documents as mentioned in their report. The O.Ps prayed to dismiss the complaint.
12. The learned counsel for O.P.no.4 in its written statement submitted that as per request of the complainant, the O.P.no.4 provided financial assistance to the complainant and the 9 complainant availed C.C.loan of Rs.8,50,000/- on 12.08.2007 and the O.P.no.4 enhanced it to Rs.15,00,000/- on 21.05.2008. The O.P.no.4 also submitted that the complainant has not paid outstanding loan amount with up to date interest, as a result of which complainant's outstanding loan came to Rs.2051095/- calculated till 05.01.2012. The O.P.no.4 also made correspondence with O.p.no.1 and 3 to convince the complainant for repayment of loan. The O.p.no.4 also submitted that complainant's grievance is against O.P.no.1 to 3 and not against O.P.no.4. Therefore prayed to dismiss the complaint.
The complainant and O.Ps filed evidence and relevant documents in support of their case.
13. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence and written arguments available on the record. The following issues are framed for proper adjudication of the case.
ISSUES
1. Whether the case is maintainable?
2. Whether complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of OPs?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim compensation? If so, what is quantum of compensation? 10
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to any other relief? Issue no.1
14. The learned counsel for the O.P.no.1 to 3 raised objection on the maintainability of the case challenging the status of the complainant that he is not a consumer as the complainant deals in goods for resale and for commercial purpose. In this context, the complainant has disclosed that, he is a consumer, as he is doing business for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment on the point, the complainant relied on the decision of Hon'ble National Commission,Delhi in the case of Harsolia Motors Vrs National Insurance Co.Ltd reported in MANU/CF/0083/2004 : 1(2005) CPJ-27(NC) wherein it is held that:
"13-Further, hiring of the services of the Insurance company by taking the Insurance policy by complainants who are carrying on commercial activities cannot be held to be a commercial purpose. The policy is taken for reimbursement or for indemnity for the loss which may be suffered due to various perils. There is no question of trading or carrying on commercial in Insurance perils by the insured or carrying on commerce in Insurance Policies by the insured may be that insurance coverage is taken for commercial activity carried out by the insured".
15- Further from the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that even taking wide mean that goods purchased or services hired 11 should be used in any activity directly intended to commercial one, it would not be commercial purpose as understood under the Act. 16 In this view of the matter a person who takes Insurace policy to cover the envisaged risk does not take the policy for commercial purpose. Policy is only for indemnification of actual loss is not intended to generate profit. It is also admitted fact that, the O.Ps has issued the policy No.2114/50025457/00/000 for an annual premium of Rs.2,517/- insured the stock in standard Fire and Special perils policy and Burglary policy for an annual premium of Rs.4,494/- vide policy No.2913/20025458/00/000 and obtained a valid Insurance policy. The stocks of the complainant were insured for a value of Rs.20,000/- which was valid for the period from 01.12.2008 to 30.11.2009. It is also admitted fact that both the premiums of Rs.7,011/- were directly debited by O.P.no.4 from the cash credit loan account of the complainant on 01.12.2008 and debiting the inspection charges from time to time. The fire incident took place on the intervening night of 05.10.2009/06.10.2009 about 2P.M in the godown of the complainant situated at Tinikonia Bagichha ,Makarba sahi,Cuttack.As because ,there is a valid Insurance coverage and out of the accident the goods listed ,the complainant's claim of loss has to be met by the O.Ps. Moreover, it is revealed from complaint and statement of 12 complainant that he has started business to earn his livelihood. So the complainant is a consumer and it is maintainable under the C.P.Act. Thus the O.Ps contention is not sustainable in this regard. Issue No.2
17. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the O.P, that it is mandatory on the part of the insured to provide all the relevant documents to the insurer for the purpose of settlement of the claim. But as the complainant did not provide the required documents to the O.ps, the claim was rightly repudiated. According to the complainant, all the stocks and valuable records pertaining to the business of the firm mere completely gutted and destroyed in fire and the fire officer issued a certificate that there was electrical short circuit in the shop. Properties consists of miscellaneous consumer durable were gutted in the devastating fire caused by electrical short circuit.
18. The complainant has stated in complaint and in his evidence that the surveyor visited the fire affected godown and assessed the loss as per Rs. 17.00 lakh to Rs.18,60 lakh in the claim form period from 01.04.09 to 31.10.09 indicating total stock value in October-2009 as Rs.18,60,169.92/- and as per request of the surveyor Er.D.K.Pattnaik, he filled up the Fire Insurance Claim form on the spot and handed over relevant documents as per 13 requirements. The complainant further stated that there has been several correspondences between the surveyor,Insurance company,Bank from 19.10.2009 to 19.04.2010 and he has complied with all the requirements and furnished all documents to the Surveyor . The complainant further alleged that after more than a year the Insurance Company by letter dated 05.05.2011 raised a new plea regarding location discrepancy with respect to the insured goods and asked him to clarify the same as well as to provide the detailed claim bill and copies of Insurance policies for two years prior to covering of the subject property with the insurance company. The complainant further submitted that after verification of the copies of Insurance policy documents he noticed that the location of the insured goods is wrongly mentioned as " Meria Bazaar" Cuttack instead of the go-down address i.e Tinikonia Bagichha, Makarbag Sahi,Cuttack, where the goods were actually stored and suffered by the fire accident, but clarified that it is OP No.4 - Bank who has got stocks insured with address.
19. Perused the documents photographs filed by the complainant and documents of O.Ps. The fire certificate which is marked as annexture-4 shows that the Asst. Fire Officer,Fire station ,Cuttack has certified that fire accident occurred in shop due to electrical short circuit and properties consisting of 14 miscellaneous consumer durable were gutted in the devastating fire caused by electrical short circuit. The letter dated 22.10.2009, 22.12.2009, 28.12.2009 and 01.01.2010 shows that the complainant had complied all the required documents to O.ps and stating that due to fire rest of the documents were burnt when the complainant has submitted all the required documents and intimate the reason for destruction of documents, the O.P should not asked for other documents which the insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control. In such circumstances we rely on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurmel Singh Vrs Branch Manager,National Insurance Co.Ltd,Civil Appeal No.4071 of 2022, date of judgement 20.05.2022, where in it was held that " Insurance company should not be too technical while settling the claims and ask for documents that the insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control."
20. Again the O.P.no.1 to 3 admitted in their written version that, the complainant is a proprietorship concern at Cuttack and having its business as a whole sale Trader and Stockist of fruit products i.e pickles, spices packing, pickle powder and spice pockets and pickle bottle and insured with O.P.no.1 to 3 from 01.12.2008 to 15 30.11.2009 through O.p.no.4 having its location at Meria bazaar,Cuttack vide policy No.2114/50025475/00/000 towards standard Fire and special perils policy and policy No.2913/20025458/00/000 towards Burglary policy but not insured the combustible material like " Agarbati" and no premium was paid for it. This policy does not cover incense sticks.
21. The standard fire and special perils policy schedule and Burglary policy schedule filed by complainant which are marked as Annexture-12 and 13 shows that the policies were valid for the period from 01.12.2008 to 30.11.2009 with sum insured value of Rs.20,00,000/- issued to the complainant on 30.01.2009. In these two policies the address of the complainant was written as Meria bazaar,Buxibazae,Cuttack. These two policies insured stock items such as pickle and spices packing pickle and powder of spices items, spices packets and pickles but not Agarbati products. The stock statements filed by complainant at Annexture-29 shows that as on 30.04.2009 Agarbati products were kept in their shop. The O.ps mentioned in their repudiation letter that combustible products were kept in their shop. The O.Ps mentioned in their repudiation letter that combustible products like Agarbati were not covered under the two policies. The repudiation of claim by O.P vide letter dated 30.06.2011 at annexture-27 mentioned that 16 highly hazardous material in the form of Agarbati were not the subject matter of Insurance reportedly kept in the premises. The repudiation letter of O.ps also mentioned that the fire and special perils policy was issued for stocks of pickles and spices and location was written as Meria Bazar,Buxibazar,Cuttack . But as per the survey report and other circumstances evidence, the said loss took place in the godown located at tinikonia Bagichha, makarbag Sahi,P.O.Buxibazar, Cuttack. So the O.P.no.1 repudiated the claim of location discrepancy. Regarding coverage of location and the items of stocks mentioned under the policy ,the complainant stated that he has no knowledge about the contents of proposal form and the policy bond till after the fire incident took place on 06.10.2009 and this matter was kept secret between the o.p.no.1 and their joint venture partner and agent Allahabad Bank . He knew that matter when he received the repudiation vide letter dated 30.06.2011 from O.P.no.1.
22. The complainant issued a letter on 22.04.2008 to the Bank (O.P.no.4) with a request for enhancement of cash credit limit, which was enhanced to Rs.15,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 21.05.2008, which are marked as Annexture-1 and 2. The clause - 4 of the terms and conditions as per Annexture A, the sanction letter stipulated that the entire stocks " of the complainant's firm 17 was required to be issued at the cost of the complainant, for the full value under a comprehensive risk insurance policy with any unit of GIC in " joint names with Bank" . The complainant alleged that 1 and 4 filled and submitted the proposal form behind the back of complainant. The stock statement has not been verified by the bank and insurance company to know the veracity of the stock prior to the incident of fire. The stock statement at annexture-29 shows that the complainant had submitted stock statement as on 30.04.2009 to the O.p.no.4 and O.P.no.4 received the documents by putting its Allahabad Bank seal and signature which clearly reveals that the combustible item is listed in the stock statement of the complainant and it was within the knowledge of O.ps that the complainant has kept combustible incentives such as Agarbati which was not insured by O.Ps. The O.P.no.1 and 3 averred that the actual loss location differs from the location mentioned in the policy. Therefore, the loss falls outside the scope of the policy. Without submission of relevant documents the surveyor surveyed the loss location. The surveyor in its affidavit has mentioned that he has assessed the loss caused to the complainant and submitted a comprehensive survey report along with the Annexures. Perused the surveyor report. The surveyor in its report mentioned that the premises where subject fire took place is 18 situated at Tinikonia Bagicha,Makarba Sahi, Cuttack . The cause of loss is electric short-circuit, which is sudden, unforeseen and accidental in nature duly covered as peril in the policy of insurance.
23. The complainant stated that in his letter dated 22.04.2008 at annexture-1 of the complaint to the Bank for enhancement of cash credit limit he has clearly indicated the location of godown at Makarba Sahi,Tinikonia Bagichha,Buxibazar,Cuttack where the entire stock were kept. The loan statement of account of the Bank at Annexture-3 of the complaint clearly describes the address of the complainant as Makarba Sahi, which has been confirmed by the bank in its letter dated 16.05.2011 in Annexture-4/E to the written version of the O.p.no.4.The complainant stated that, the Bank officials visited the godown several times to inspect the stocks for which inspection charges were debited from the loan account of the complainant. After perusal of the above said documents at Annexture-1 and annexture-4/E, it is clear that the complainant has duly informed the bank with regard to the godown at Makarba Sahi,Buxibazar, Cuttack. Therefore, the O.ps cannot deny that they have no knowledge of change of location. From the evidence of both parties and pleadings of both the parties including evidence of surveyor, it is clear that entire stock including agarbati 19 were insured with OP Nos. 1 to 3 and they were damaged by fire which is caused by short circuit of electricity. It is also found from the aforesaid discussion that there is no location discrepancy because stock in godown at Tinikonia Bagicha under Meria Bazar has been same address office of the complainant. For that we taken judicial notice of the fact that Tinikonia Bagicha and Meria Bazar are the same hamlets. Complaint has also proved to have submitted all documents but OP Nos. 1 to 3 did not settle the claim on the plea that the complainant failed to file documents. Moreover, OP Nos. 1 to 3 have sat over the claim for unreasonable time and finally repudiated the claim on irrelevant and irrational ground. OP Nos. 1 to 3 have not proved any ground as good ground to deny the claim. As such we are of view that complaint has proved the deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos. 1 to 3. No deficiency in service on the part of OP No. 4 proved as it is the insurer OP Nos. 1 to 3 who has repudiated the claim on no proved basis. Issue No. 2 is answered accordingly. Issue No.3
24. Report of the surveyor clearly shows that there was a electrical short circuit , which was sudden ,unforeseen and accidental in nature, which is a covered peril in the policy of Insurance. The surveyor report mentioned that due to some 20 electric short circuit fire spread to the surrounding area and led to damage to the stocks. The Surveyor assessed loss as Rs.1,80,000/- but the complainant is claiming Rs.33,80,170/- We rely on the decisions of United India Insurance Co.Ltd, & Others Vrs. Roshal Lal Oil Mills Ltd & Ors , reported in 2000(10) SCC-19. It was held that "xxx xxx xxx report of the surveyor is an important documents and it should be considered before arriving at a judgement". Issue No. 3 is answered accordingly.
Issue no.4
25. The Fire took place in the godown premises on midnight of 06.10.2009 of the complainant . The matter was reported to police on 06.10.2009. The insured has claimed an amount of Rs.18,60,000/- .The final survey report at annexture-4 shows that at page-11 and 12, the surveyor Sri Vivek Johar clearly mentioned which is as follows:-
"xxx xxx xxx It was further noted tht a team of bank officials visited the insured's godown, conducted the stocks verification and issued a "Stock Visit/Verification Report".
As per this report the major points are as under:
Date of visit : 05.09.2009
Place of visit : Makarbag Bhai, Buxi Bazar
Observation/Remarks
Amount of stock : Approximately Rs.3,00,000
21
General Observations : Stock Position is not good as per sanction limit.
Since this is the only third party/independent document available which indicates the approximate value of stock as on 05.09.2009, the same is being considered as the basis for assessment of loss.
Therefore, Cost of stocks as on 05.09.2009 = Rs.3,00,000 The purchase bills & sales register Are being considered for short Period (from 05.05.2009 to 06.10.2009) Ad purchase w.e.f. 05.09.2009 to = Rs.2,93,145 Sub-Total Rs.5,93,145 Less sales w.e.f. 05.09.2009 to = Rs.1,96,959 Date of loss Net Amount = Rs.3,96,186 As per physical inspection & insured's statement (subsequently dis-owned), the insured was found dealing in many items other than the insured items.
As no Stock Register was available to segregate the insured and un-insured goods, we are of the considered opinion that the total stocks be divided on 50/50 basis.
Therefore,
Cost of Insured Goods = 50% of Rs.3,96,186
(as on date of fire) = Rs.1,98,093/-
Therefore,
Total Loss = Rs.1,98,093
Less Salvage
(Notional on L/S Basis) = Rs. 8,093
Assessed Loss = Rs.1,90,000
Less Policy Excess = Rs. 10,000
Net Liability = Rs.1,80,000
22
The above amount of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees One Lacs & Eighty Thousand only) is the net liability of teh underwriters, if accepted."
26. From this it is clear that on 05.09.2009 before the incident bank official visited and assessed value of stock total Rs.5,93,145/- after the incident the 2nd surveyor assessed the loss of Rs.1,80,000/-. But the complainant has not filed any document of first surveyor's assessment report only saying that he has assessed loss of Rs.17,00,000/- to 18,00,000/- as per claim form.
27. It is well settled law that the report of the surveyor is an important document unless proved otherwise. In the instant case the surveyor's report does not inspire confidence. In fact the Surveyor, has not assessed the claim as per items and quantify wise calculation chart submitted by the complainant. The surveyor calculated some items in less number than the actual damaged stock. The entire items burnt which is difficult to calculate the exact loss. We are of the view that there is ambiguity in assessment of loss. Therefore, on the basis of calculation of assessment of loss on 05.09.2009 by Bank official prior to incident, we are of the view that the complainant can get only Rs.5,93,145 with interest from the O.P.no.1 to 3, because O.P.no.1 to 3 have committed deficiency in service on their part and are liable to pay the compensation to the complainant. Hence order. 23
ORDER The O.P.no.1 to 3 are jointly liable and directed to pay Rs.5,93,145/- along with 6% interest per annum from the date of order, failing which the total awarded amount shall carry 9% interest till the realisation of amount. The O.P.no.1 to 3 are directed to pay compensation Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for mental agony and harassment. The O.P.no.1 to 3 are directed to comply with the above said order within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. The O.P.no.4 exonerated from the allegations against him.
The complaint case is allowed and disposed of accordingly. No cost.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
...............................
(Dr.D.P.Choudhury J) President .....................
(Dr.P.K.Prusty) Member .............................
(Miss S.L.Pattnaik) Member 24