State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Roshan Lal & Anr. vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & ... on 12 December, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
Consumer Complaint No: 03/2011.
Date
of Decision: 12.12.2012.
1. Shri Roshan Lal Thakur S/o Shri Nand
Lal Thakur,
Resident of Roshni Niwas, Near Post
Office Totu,
Shimla-11.
2. Shri Nand Lal Thakur S/o Shri Amar
Singh Thakur,
Resident of Roshni Niwas, Near Post
Office Totu,
Shimla-11.
Complainants.
Versus
1. IFFCO
Tokia General Insurance Company Limited,
Registered
Office at IFFCO Sadan, C-1, District Centre,
Saket
New Delhi.
2. The
Manager,
IFFCO
Tokia General Insurance Company Limited,
Branch
Office, Khalini, Shimla.
3. The
Manager,
IFFCO
Tokia General Insurance Company Limited,
Office
at Gurgaon, Haryana-122001.
Opposite Parties.
Coram
Honble
Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Honble
Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member
Honble
Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.
Whether
approved for reporting?[1]
For the
Complainants: Mr. Deepak Gupta,
Advocate.
For the
Opposite Parties: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) This complaint, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been filed by Roshan Lal Thakur and his father Nand Lal Thakur, who are joint owners of a building insured with the opposite parties, seeking issuance of a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of `20,27,400/- with interest at the rate of 18% per month, on account of damage caused to the insured building, `50,000/-, as compensation and `20,000/-, as litigation expenses.
2. Complainants being the owners of a building situate in Mauja Manjeth, Tehsil and District Shimla, got it insured with the opposite parties in the sum of `23.00 lacs, through Punjab National Bank, from whom they had raised loan for the construction of the said building. According to the complainants, on 28th August, 2009, due to heavy rains, the building and its retaining wall were badly damaged. Intimation of the incident was given to the opposite parties, who deputed a surveyor. According to the complainant, damage caused to the building was to the tune of `20,27,400/-, but the surveyor assessed it only at `4,72,600/-, and the opposite parties paid the later mentioned amount of money and refused to pay the remaining amount. Complainants have, therefore, filed this complaint, seeking issuance of a direction to the opposite parties to pay the entire amount of money, for which the building was insured, besides paying interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
3. Opposite parties have contested the complaint. They have pleaded that the damage caused to the building was to the extent of `4,72,600/-, as per report of the surveyor, and that the aforesaid amount of money had been accepted by the complainants, in full and final satisfaction of their claim and it had been credited into their loan account with the Punjab National Bank. It is stated that the aforesaid amount of money having been accepted by the complainants in full and final satisfaction of their claim, the complaint is not competent.
4. Parties have adduced evidence. During the pendency of the complaint, we appointed a Local Commissioner, namely Shri Madan Lal, Retd. Sr. Executive Engineer (C), from H.P. State Electricity Board. Local Commissioner was nominated with the consent of the parties, vide our order dated 16.07.2012. Local Commissioner has submitted his report, per which damage caused to the building is to the tune of `9.93 lacs. He has submitted abstract of cost and detail of measurement with his report.
5. Objections to the report of the Local Commissioner have been filed by the opposite parties, who allege that the Local Commissioner was influenced by the complainants. Another objection raised by them is that the Local Commissioner did not associate them during the spot inspection. Complainants have not filed any objections.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
7. It is true that the Local Commissioner did not associate the opposite parties, while inspecting the spot, though as a matter of principle, he ought to have associated them, particularly, when the complainants had been associated, but this by itself should not be a ground for assuming that the Local Commissioner has favoured the complainants, as alleged by the opposite parties. We have seen the report of the Local Commissioner and compared it with the report of the surveyor engaged by the opposite parties. We do not see much difference between the quantity of work required to be carried out to restore the building to its original condition indicated by the surveyor in his report and the such quantity indicated by the Local Commissioner in his report and wherever substantial difference is there in the quantity, that also does not make the report suspect for the reasons that the surveyor has not indicated in his report why he had reduced such quantities from the quantities indicated in the estimate of the complainants. Local Commissioner is a retired Sr. Executive Engineer, from a Government owned Board and he was appointed with the consent of both the parties, which implies that both of them repose confidence and faith in him.
8. However, we find that the Local Commissioner while working out damage in monetary terms, has applied the rates, as applicable on the date of his report, i.e. 28.08.2012, though the same were required to be worked out as per rate prevailing on the date of damage caused to the building. Also, he has added an amount of `39,527.33 on account of replacement of damaged wood work, which item is not included even in complainants own estimate, Annexure C-4.
9. We have calculated the money payable for the damage quantified in the report of the Local Commissioner by applying the rates, as indicated in surveyors report, as also in the estimate, Annexure C-4, submitted by the complainants and the amount comes to `7,44,146/-, after excluding the cost of woodwork.
10. As regards the plea of opposite parties that the complainants have accepted the amount of `4,72,600/- in full and final satisfaction of their claim, the alleged discharge voucher Annexure O-4 is not signed by both the complainants, but only by one of them, i.e. Roshal Lal. Moreover, this letter appears to have been got signed from Roshan Lal by the Manager of the Bank, from which loan had been raised, in routine, because the voucher is signed by the Manager of the Bank as insured, while the signature of the complainant Roshan Lal appears in the capacity of a borrower only.
11. As a result of the above stated position, complaint is allowed and it is ordered that opposite parties shall pay to the complainants a sum of `7,44,146/-, less the amount of `4,72,600/-, i.e. `2,71,546/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of the complaint, to the date of the payment of the aforesaid amount of money and shall also pay `20,000/- as compensation and `10,000/- as litigation expenses.
12. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member December 12, 2012.
N Mehta) [1] Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?