State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S A-One Trading Corporation Regd. vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd on 7 February, 2018
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 01 / 2007
M/s A-One Trading Corporation (Regd.)
Gaujajali, Bareilly Road, Haldwani
District Nainital through its Proprietor
Sh. Mukesh Singh S/o late Sh. Amar Singh
R/o Gaujajali, Bareilly Road, Haldwani
District Nainital
......Complainant
Versus
United India Insurance Company Limited
through its Divisional Manager
Divisional Office, Tikonia
Nainital Road, Haldwani
District Nainital
......Opposite Party
Sh. Deepak Ahluwalia, Learned Counsel for the Complainant
Smt. Savita Sethi, Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, President
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 07/02/2018
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President):
This consumer complaint under Section 12 read with Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by M/s A-One Trading Corporation (Regd.) (hereinafter referred to as "complainant") against the opposite party, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not indemnifying the loss occasioned to the complainant on account of fire which took place in the factory / godown of the complainant situated at Gaujajali, Bareilly Road, Haldwani, District Nainital in the night intervening 14/15.12.2004.2
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant is a proprietorship concern having its Head Office at Gaujajali, Bareilly Road, Haldwani, District Nainital, presently under the sole proprietorship of Sh. Mukesh Singh. The complainant is manufacturer of Wooden Furniture, Doors and Door's frame, Building Material, Packaging Case, Rools for Maps, Charts and Process Wood, Educational Kit and Scientific Kit etc. and is also trader of various types of wood. The unit of the complainant, i.e., saw mill and godown are situated at Gaujajali, Bareilly Road, Haldwani, District Nainital. The unfinished and ram materials of the complainant are stored in the godown situated at the above-mentioned place. The saw mill and the property of the complainant were insured with the opposite party - United India Insurance Company Limited under two insurance policies, i.e., Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy No. 080900/11/03/00575 valid for the period from 14.03.2004 to 13.03.2005 for insured sum of Rs. 34,50,000/- and another Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy No. 080900/11/03/00467 valid for the period from 30.12.2003 to 29.12.2004 for insured sum of Rs. 25,00,000/-. Under the Policy No. 080900/11/03/00575, godown building / workshop; all types of finished wooden items, plywood, sunmica, velvets and stock of wooden items like logs, giltas and ballies were covered and under the Policy No. 080900/11/03/00467, saw mill building and shade; all types of plant and machinery; stock in process finished and semi-finished wooden furniture and stock of all types of wooden giltas, logs and kher wood were covered. During the currency of the above insurance policies, in the night intervening 14/15.12.2004, fire broke out in the factory / godown of the complainant situated at Gaujajali, Bareilly Road, Haldwani, District Nainital. The information of the fire was reported to the police as well as fire brigade authorities. In the said fire, stocks (raw material, unfinished and finished material) were extensively damaged and the 3 complainant suffered huge monetary loss. The intimation of the fire was given to the opposite party - insurance company on 15.12.2004, wherein without assessing the actual loss, probable amount of loss was mentioned. Vide letter dated 19.12.2004 of the complainant, the insurance company was informed that the actual loss caused to the complainant in the fire incident is Rs. 41,00,000/-. Through letter dated 27.01.2005, the complainant submitted the claim with the insurance company and all the required documents / details were also submitted with the insurance company. The entire raw material was hypothecated with State Bank of India, Haldwani.
3. The complainant had submitted the statement of assets with the bank on 30.11.2004, wherein the value of the raw material was mentioned as Rs. 36,42,032/-; the value of the semi-finished material (goods in process) was mentioned as Rs. 17,30,138/- and the value of the finished goods was mentioned as Rs. 10,16,058/-. This apart, as per the statement of assets submitted by the complainant with the bank in the morning of 14.12.2004, the date on which the fire broke out, the value of the raw material was Rs. 33,87,990/-; the value of the goods in process was Rs. 10,58,198/- and the value of the finished goods was Rs. 15,70,724/-. In the fire in question, raw material to the value of Rs. 23,04,302/-; semi-finished goods to the value of Rs. 10,58,198/- and finished goods to the value of Rs. 7,62,043/- were destroyed. The insurance company appointed surveyor, who assessed the loss. In the meantime, Sh. Amar Singh, the then Proprietor of the complainant, got seriously ill and was on dialysis at New Delhi, as both his kidneys had stopped functioning. Inspite of completing all the formalities by the complainant, the insurance company did not settle the claim of the complainant. In the meantime, the officials of the insurance company started pressurizing Sh. Amar Singh, the then Proprietor of the complainant as well as Sh. Mukesh Singh, the 4 present Proprietor of the complainant and started bargaining with regard to settlement of claim. For want of funds, the complainant was also unable to repay the bank loan. The condition of Sh. Amar Singh went on deteriorating and the complainant was under financial constraint. Under the said circumstances, the present Proprietor of the complainant agreed for settlement of claim at sum of Rs. 29,75,000/- and gave consent for the same. However, the said amount was also not paid by the insurance company to the complainant. The officials of the insurance company further tried to pressurize the erstwhile as well as present Proprietor of the complainant to reduce the amount consented for by the complainant for settlement of claim. The former as well as present Proprietor of the complainant were shattered psychologically and financially. The condition of Sh. Amar Singh went on further deteriorating and due to the financial constraint and the impending marriage of his daughter fixed for 06.02.2006, Sh. Amar Singh without understanding, agreed to sign the discharge voucher on the dictates of the insurance company on 01.02.2006. At that time, Sh. Amar Singh was not in proper state of mind and health and being unable to climb stairs, while sitting in the car, simply put his signatures on the revenue stamps affixed on the two documents and received cheques. The present Proprietor of the complainant raised objections and stated that the cheques would be received under protest, whereupon the insurance company refused to give the cheques. However, the complainant was compelled to receive the cheques inspite of verbal protest. The then Proprietor of the complainant vide letter dated 02.02.2006 conveyed the objections against the receipt of the said amount to the insurance company, stating that the amount has been received under protest. The insurance company did not submit any reason for reduction of the claim amount. The insurance company vide letter dated 16.02.2006 refused to pay any further amount to the complainant. The insurance 5 company did not make the loss occasioned to the complainant good and did not pay the balance claim amount. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party - insurance company, the complainant filed the present consumer complaint and prayed for the reliefs, as mentioned in para 23 (relief clause) of the consumer complaint.
4. The opposite party - insurance company filed written statement and pleaded that the complainant took a long time in submitting the relevant documents and completing the required formalities; that the claim form was submitted by the complainant vide letter dated 27.01.2005; that the Proprietor of the complainant had given consent for settlement of claim for sum of Rs. 29,75,000/-; that the insurance company has paid an amount of Rs. 23,87,023/- to the complainant in full and final settlement of the claim as per policy conditions; that the cheques were received by Sh. Amar Singh without any protest; that the protest letter was sent subsequently after receipt of the cheques; that it is evident from the balance sheet that manipulations have been made; that various letters were written to the complainant to complete the formalities; that the surveyor also wrote several letters to the complainant to complete the formalities and furnish the required documents; that the settlement intimation voucher was signed by the complainant as well as bank towards full and final payment of the claim; that the insurance company has properly settled the claim and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
5. In evidence, the complainant has filed the affidavit dated 14.09.2009 of Sh. Mukesh Singh, Proprietor of the complainant (Paper Nos. 75 to 99) along with certain documents. The complainant has also filed the affidavit dated 09.09.2009 of Sh. Neeraj Sharda, Chartered Accountant (Paper No. 115), annexing therewith the audit 6 report dated 30.10.2005 of N. Sharda & Associates, Chartered Accountants (Paper Nos. 116 to 131). In evidence, the opposite party has filed the final survey report dated 21.07.2005 of Sh. Vinod Sharma, Surveyor & Loss Adjusters (Paper Nos. 143 to 164) along with certain documents. The opposite party has also filed the preliminary survey report dated 09.01.2005 of Sh. Denesh Kumar Saxena, Surveyor, Loss Assessor, Valuer and Investigator (Paper Nos. 300 to 323). The opposite party has further filed the affidavit dated 16.09.2010 of Sh. Denesh Kumar Saxena (Paper Nos. 337 to
338); affidavit dated 27.09.2010 of Sh. Vinod Sharma (Paper Nos. 339 to 340) as well as affidavit dated 05.10.2010 of Sh. R.S. Rathor, Divisional Manager (Paper Nos. 341 to 358). The complainant has filed the affidavit dated 09.05.2011 of Sh. Mukesh Singh (Paper Nos. 363 to 372) in rebuttal to the affidavits filed by the opposite party in evidence. The complainant has filed the written arguments dated 17.03.2015 (Paper Nos. 390 to 416), annexing therewith certain documents and has also cited case law. Learned counsel for the opposite party has filed the written arguments dated 30.03.2015 (Paper Nos. 459 to 467).
6. After the evidence of both the parties was over and the consumer complaint was fixed for oral arguments, the opposite party
- insurance company moved an amendment application dated 19.06.2012 (Paper Nos. 376 to 377), thereby seeking amendment in the written statement filed by the opposite party. The said amendment application was rejected by this Commission per order dated 16.06.2015.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
78. The core issue to be decided in the present consumer complaint is whether the opposite party - insurance company has settled the claim of the complainant in full and final satisfaction or not and whether the complainant is entitled to any further amount from the opposite party - insurance company or not.
9. There is no dispute with regard to the insurance and the incident of fire taking place during the currency of the insurance policies. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant has suffered loss in the incident of fire. There is further no dispute that the complainant has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, nor any such plea has been taken by the insurance company. Surveyor Sh. Vinod Sharma in his report has also stated that no breach of policy warranties has been observed by him.
10. The complainant has alleged that in the fire incident of question, loss of Rs. 41,00,000/- was sustained by the complainant, which was informed by the complainant to the insurance company through letter dated 19.12.2004. The surveyor per his report dated 21.07.2005 has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 29,75,100/-. There is letter dated 13.07.2005 of the complainant (Paper No. 28) addressed to the surveyor Sh. Vinod Sharma, wherein it was stated that the complainant is agreed with the assessment of loss made by the surveyor for sum of Rs. 29,75,000/-. The subject of the said letter was "consent". In the said letter, it was further written by the complainant that, "we confirm that basis of assessment of loss including salvage value of damaged stocks considered by you have been fully explained to us and agreed by us". However, the record shows that the said letter was not promptly acted upon by the insurance company, as the payment of Rs. 23,87,023/- came to be made by the insurance 8 company to the complainant vide two cheques dated 31.01.2006, copy of which is Paper No. 280, which were issued by the insurance company in favour of State Bank of India, Haldwani, A/c A-One Trading Corporation. Thus, there was considerable and long delay between 13.07.2005 to 31.01.2006 on the part of the insurance company to even settle the claim on the basis of the consent obtained by it from the complainant and, therefore, with the passage of such a long period of more than six months' in the settlement of complainant's time in the light of the consent obtained from it, the said consent lost its sanctity / importance / relevance. Even otherwise, as is stated above, by way of the consent, the complainant had agreed for settlement of claim for sum of Rs. 29,75,000/- in consonance with the amount of loss assessed by the insurance company's surveyor, but the insurance company had paid sum of Rs. 23,87,023/- to the complainant in respect of the claim lodged by the complainant with the insurance company regarding the fire incident.
11. So far as the settlement of claim by the insurance company for sum of Rs. 23,87,023/- in full and final satisfaction is concerned, two cheques dated 31.01.2006 for sum of Rs. 13,37,133/- and Rs. 10,49,890/- respectively were issued by the insurance company in favour of State Bank of India, Haldwani, A/c A-One Trading Corporation and the settlement intimation vouchers for the said sum duly signed by the Proprietor of the complainant are Paper Nos. 281 to 282. It is true that there is no endorsement on the settlement intimation vouchers from the side of the complainant that the amount has been received under protest, but it is worth to mention here that the payment was made by the insurance company vide cheques dated 31.01.2006 and within no time, the complainant has lodged the protest with the insurance company through letter dated 02.02.2006 (Paper No. 278), stating therein that the complainant is receiving the cheques 9 under protest only and a request was made to pay the balance amount of claim. It would not be out of place to mention here that the settlement intimation vouchers were signed by the Proprietor of the complainant on 01.02.2006 at 4:25 p.m. and on the very next day, i.e., 02.02.2006, the protest was made by the complainant.
12. The perusal of the consumer complaint will show that the complainant has tried out to put forth the circumstances to show that the complainant was being harassed by the insurance company on one ground or another and there was unreasonable delay on the part of the insurance company in settling the legitimate claim of the complainant and hence the complainant thought it better to receive whatever amount was offered by the insurance company and to thereafter make claim for remaining amount. Writing a protest letter to the insurance company by the complainant on the very next day of receiving the cheques, would certainly mean that the complainant had not agreed for settlement of claim for sum of Rs. 23,87,023/- in full and final discharge and this way, the complainant was not estopped from making further claim from the insurance company. Learned counsel for the complainant cited a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills and others; II (1999) CPJ 10 (SC), wherein it was held that mere execution of the discharge voucher would not always deprive the consumer from preferring claim with respect to the deficiency in service or consequential benefits arising out of the amount paid in default of the service rendered. Despite execution of the discharge voucher, the consumer may be in a position to satisfy the Tribunal or the Commission under the Act that such discharge voucher or receipt had been obtained from him under the circumstances which can be termed as fraudulent or exercise of undue influence or by misrepresentation or the like. If in a given case, the 10 consumer satisfies the authority under the Act that the discharge voucher was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, under influence or the like, coercive bargaining compelled by circumstances, the authority before whom the complaint is made, would be justified in granting appropriate relief. In the instant case, it can safely be said that it was coercive bargaining from the side of the insurance company coupled with the circumstances, which forced the complainant to sign the settlement intimation voucher. The insurance company was even not ready to pay the amount, as was assessed by their statutory surveyor. Learned counsel further cited a decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Singureddy Ramana Murthy Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others; I (2003) CPJ 37 (NC), wherein it was held that it can not be disputed that the insurance company is the dominant party when it goes to the settlement of the claims and it is very often in a position to dominate the Will of the insured. A party who is faced with the situation like a disaster and who is cash starved on account of calamity that has befallen, is not a position to resist the pressure of the insurance company to sign the receipt on the dotted lines in order to receive whatever payment is becoming available to it. Such receipt will have no meaning if the party has immediately refuted and repudiated its receipt or discharge voucher if the circumstances show that the party protested soon after signing. In para 12 of the consumer complaint, the complainant has specifically stated that because of the severe financial crunch and not having received a penny since December, 2004, the complainant was under intense financial constraints and pressure from every quarter. No specific denial has been made by the insurance company to the averments made in para 12 of the consumer complaint and in para 12 of the written statement filed by the insurance company, it has been stated that the contents of para 12 of the complaint as stated are not admitted. Strict proof is required to 11 prove the facts alleged. Even otherwise, there was immediate protest from the side of the complainant to the settlement of claim made by the insurance company for sum of Rs. 23,87,023/-. Learned counsel also cited another decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of M/s Inventa Chemicals Ltd. Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd.; 2004 NCJ 363 (NC), wherein it was held that receipt with endorsement "full and final settlement" given to receive money offered after a long time of incidence of fire, is under coercion. In the present case also, the fire broke out in the factory / godown of the complainant in the night intervening 14/15.12.2004, whereas the cheques were issued on 31.01.2006, i.e., after more than a year of the incident of fire. Learned counsel further cited a decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Worldfa Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.; I (2016) CPJ 8 (Del.), wherein it was held that the insistence of insurance company to sign discharge voucher of full and final settlement before release of admitted claim amounts to coercion and undue influence under Sections 15 and 16 of Contract Act and such contracts are voidable under Sections 19 and 19A of Contract Act. It was further held that a discharge voucher executed under financial stress, duress and coercion is void-ab-initio. In the said decision, reliance was also placed on the Circular dated 24.09.2015 issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India, whereby the CEOs of all General Insurance Companies were informed that the insurance companies are using 'discharge voucher' or 'settlement intimation voucher' or in some other name, so that the claim is closed and does not remain outstanding in their books. However, of late, the Authority has been receiving complaints from aggrieved policy holders that the said instrument of discharge voucher is being used by the insurers in the judicial Fora with the plea that the full and final discharge given by the policy holders extinguish their rights to contest the claim 12 before the Courts. It was opined by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India that while the Authority notes that the insurers need to keep their books of accounts in order, it is also necessary to note that insurers shall not use the instrument of discharge voucher as a means of estoppel against the aggrieved policy holders when such policy holder approaches judicial Fora. By the said Circular, the insurers were advised that it should be clearly understood that execution of such vouchers does not foreclose the rights of policy holder to seek higher compensation before any judicial Fora or any other Fora established by law.
13. Learned counsel for the opposite party cited a decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. T. Gopal; III (2015) CPJ 311 (NC), wherein it was held that after having accepted the amount in full and final settlement of all his claims, the complainant is estopped from making any claim against the petitioner. It was further held that in case he was not satisfied with the amount offered, he ought not to have accepted payment or could have accepted under protest, but there was no such endorsement on discharge voucher. It is true that there is no endorsement of receiving the amount under protest on the settlement intimation voucher from the side of the complainant, but the circumstances show that the complainant was in financial constraint and was in dire need of money. It is also important to mention here that on the very next day of receiving the cheques, protest was lodged by the complainant with the insurance company. Learned counsel also cited another decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Aradhna Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another; III (2015) CPJ 319 (NC). In the said case, part-payment was made and balance amount was paid later and discharge voucher was executed. It was held that the insurance 13 company does not stand in a fiduciary relationship vis-à-vis complainant and misrepresentation and coercion on the part of the insurance company was not established. In the instant case, as has been stated above, the fire incident took place in the night intervening 14/15.12.2004 and the cheques were issued by the insurance company on 31.01.2006 and hence it can safely be said that the settlement of the claim of the complainant was prolonged by the insurance company for no good or reason, even when the surveyor appointed by the insurance company has reported that there was no breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the part of the complainant - insured. It is also worth to mention here that the payment has not been made by the insurance company to the complainant in terms of the loss assessed by the surveyor. In the reported case, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Vs. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd.; VIII (2008) SLT 368 = (2009) 1 SCC 267, wherein in para 26, it was held that, "when we refer to a discharge of contract by an agreement signed by both the parties or by execution of a full and final discharge voucher / receipt by one of the parties, we refer to an agreement or discharge voucher which is validly and voluntarily executed. If the party which has executed the discharge agreement or discharge voucher, alleges that the execution of such discharge agreement or voucher was on account of fraud / coercion / undue influence practiced by the other party and is able to establish the same, then obviously the discharge of the contract by such agreement / voucher is render void and can not be acted upon". Coercion means pressure or compulsion or force. The complainant has specifically stated in the consumer complaint that there was continuous pressure and bargaining from the side of the insurance company in regard to the settlement of claim for lesser amount and on account of financial constraint and impending marriage of the sister of present Proprietor 14 of the complainant - firm, which was fixed for 06.02.2006, the complainant had to receive the amount offered by the insurance company vide cheques dated 31.01.2006, i.e., only six days' prior to the date of the marriage of the daughter of Sh. Amar Singh, the then Proprietor of the complainant - proprietorship firm. Learned counsel cited one more decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Combined Medical Institute Private Limited; III (2015) CPJ 503 (NC), wherein it was held that consent given by a person would be deemed to be a free consent and would be binding upon parties to contract unless it can be shown that it was obtained by unlawful means. It was further held that since no case of coercion is made out by the complainant, the order passed by the State Commission, thereby allowing appeal filed by the complainant, can not be sustained. In the present case, as is stated above, there was coercion exercised by the insurance company and the circumstances put forth by the complainant in the consumer complaint and the delay on the part of the insurance company in settling the claim of the complainant, that too not in consonance with the amount of loss assessed by the surveyor, compelled the complainant to receive whatever amount was being offered by the insurance company. Learned counsel also cited another decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Nalagarh Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited and others; III (2015) CPJ 167 (NC). In the said case, there was violation of conditions of policy on the part of the insured and the repudiation of the claim by the insurance company was held to be justified. There is no such eventuality in the present case. Learned counsel also pressed into service the Circular dated 08.06.2016 issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India, thereby reviewing the matter with regard to discharge voucher issue, taking into consideration its earlier Circular 15 dated 24.09.2015, which was cited by the learned counsel for the complainant. In the Circular dated 08.06.2016, the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India has directed that if the amount offered is disputed by the insured/s or claimant/s, insurers would take steps to pay the amount assessed without waiting for the voucher discharged by the insured/s or claimant/s. It was further directed that under no circumstances, the discharge vouchers shall be collected under duress, by coercion, by force or compulsion. The said Circular goes against the insurance company because firstly, the surveyor appointed by the insurance company has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 29,75,100/-, whereas the insurance company has paid sum of Rs. 23,87,023/- to the complainant and no plausible reason has been put forth by the insurance company for making deduction in the amount of loss assessed by the surveyor. Secondly, the facts and circumstances of the present case clearly prove beyond any shadow of doubt that there was coercion exercised by the insurance company in regard to the settlement of complainant's claim.
14. Thus, the net result of the above discussion is that the execution of the settlement intimation vouchers by the complainant in the given facts and circumstances of the case, does not act an estoppel against the complainant and does not stop the complainant from making further / balance claim with the insurance company for reimbursement of loss occasioned to the complainant in the fire incident, which brings us to the next question as to how much further claim the complainant is entitled to from the insurance company.
15. The complainant has alleged that there was loss of Rs. 41,00,000/- occasioned to the complainant in the fire incident in question. The surveyor of the insurance company vide his report dated 21.07.2005 has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 29,75,100/-.
16Vide letter dated 13.07.2005, the complainant has given the consent for settlement of claim for sum of Rs. 29,75,000/-. It is true that since the said consent was not acted upon by the insurance company and the amount agreed for by the complainant and consent for which was submitted by the complainant, was not paid by the insurance company to the complainant and hence by passage of time, the said consent had lost its sanctity, however, it can safely and easily be said submitting consent for settlement of claim for Rs. 29,75,000/- as per the loss assessed by the surveyor, meant that the complainant had no grievance against the assessment of loss made by the surveyor of the insurance company and the complainant was ready to receive the said amount towards settlement of the claim submitted with the insurance company. This apart, it is a settled law that the report of the surveyor is an important document and the same can not be brushed aside unless there is cogent and reliable evidence to the contrary on record. The Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Suryachem Industries Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.; I (2007) CPJ 278 (NC), has held that the surveyor's report being an important document has to be given due relevance and importance unless it is rebutted by some cogent evidence. The Hon'ble National Commission in another decision rendered in the case of Ashu Textiles Vs. New India Assurance Company and another; III (2009) CPJ 272 (NC), has observed that the surveyor's report should be taken into consideration for determining the compensation, as the surveyor's report has to be given more weightage than the report submitted by anybody else or any private agency. After perusal of the entire record before us, we do not find any cogent and reliable evidence having been produced from the side of the complainant, which may provoke us to go against the assessment of loss made by the surveyor and to discard the survey report. It is also important to mention here that at the very first instance after the incident of fire, the complainant by letter dated 17 15.12.2004 (Paper No. 20) has intimated the insurance company that in the fire incident, it has sustained loss between Rs. 25,00,000/- to Rs. 30,00,000/-. Thus, at the very first instance, as per the own case of the complainant, the maximum loss sustained by the complainant in the fire incident was to the tune of Rs. 30,00,000/-. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the complainant was entitled to sum of Rs. 29,75,000/- as per the loss assessed by the surveyor of the insurance company and which amount the complainant had agreed to receive from the insurance company in respect of the claim lodged with the insurance company. Since the insurance company has already paid an amount of Rs. 23,87,023/- to the complainant and hence the complainant is entitled to remaining / balance amount of Rs. 5,87,977/- and the complainant is also entitled to interest @7% p.a. on the above amount from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
16. For the reasons aforesaid, consumer complaint is allowed and the opposite party - insurance company is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,87,977/- to the complainant together with interest @7% p.a. from 25.01.2007, i.e., the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (JUSTICE B.S. VERMA) K