State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Vishesh Creations vs United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd on 17 March, 2022
ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
Consumer Complaint No.53 of 2019
Date of Institution : 23.01.2019
Date of Reserve : 15.02.2022
Date of Decision : 17.03.2022
M/s Vishesh Creations, Uppal Farm, Opp. Apollo Processors, P.O.
Central Jail, Ajnala Road, Amritsar, through its partner namely
Sh.Vipul Kapoor.
....Complainant
Versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 35, Malkia Chowk, Dharam Singh
Market, Amritsar, Punjab- through its Branch Manager/Authorized
Person/Managing Director, E-mail ID : [email protected].
..... Opposite Party
Consumer Complaint under Section 17 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum:-
Mr.Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Presiding Member
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Argued By:-
For the complainant : Sh.Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Sh.Munish Goel, Advocate RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL, PRESIDING MEMBER The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as, "the Act"). The complainant has averred that the complainant firm is a partnership concern and is into the business of embroidery of fabric and dress material. The complainant -firm took "Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy" from the opposite party for the period 21.11.2017 to 20.11.2018. The sum insured of the said policy was Rs.70,00,000/- on the complete building, Rs.1,50,00,000/- on the entire machinery and Rs.65,00,000/- on stock-in-trade. Further averred that on 30.06.2018, due to short Consumer Complaint No.53 of 2019 2 circuiting of wires from supply cable passing through the trench near the affected Schiffli Embroidery Machine, Model EPOCA-5, the spark fell on the cotton waste lying in the trench causing fire to cotton waste and thus, spread all over the machinery causing major damage to the machine. A worker namely Sh.Subhash Chand went to the spot near the machine and found lot of smoke and flame on the machine near the gate. He then acted spontaneously and tried to extinguish the fire with the extinguisher cylinders in 30-40 minutes, thus, there was no necessity to inform the fire brigade. The opposite party was informed and also information was given to the concerned police chowki about the said incident on 30.06.2018 for lodging the report. During investigation, the police authorities recorded a statement of the concerned worker i.e. Subash Chand and thereafter lodged a DDR No.030 dated 03.07.2018. The opposite party appointed Sh. J.S. Malhotra, Surveyor & Loss Assessor to visit the factory premises, who visited the premises accompanied with Sh.Sachin Bamotra, Asstt. Manager, D.O.II, Amritsar and Sh.Anil Khanna, Insurance Agent on 30.06.2018, then on 02.07.2018 and prepared a preliminary report dated 10.07.2018. Thereafter, the said officials permitted the complainant to dismantle the damaged parts and proceed with the repair of the affected machine. The complainant contacted local expert technician of the machine. In the meanwhile, Saurer Textile Solutions Pvt. Ltd. sent its technician namely Sh.Pankaj Yadav on 01.07.2018 to the complainant's factory to assess / find out the cause of fire which adversely affected the machine, who gave his report dated 02.07.2018 Consumer Complaint No.53 of 2019 3 mentioning therein that some parts are damaged due to external short circuit. The opposite party then appointed second surveyor Sh.Rajan Sharda, B.Com. (Hons.) F.C.A. Surveyor & Loss Assessor to assess the loss who visited the complainant firm on 09.07.2018 and advised to carry out the repair work on the machine and to send the bills. The opposite party subsequently appointed Supreme Testing Lab & Forensic Evidence Protection Technology Pvt. Ltd. for preparing a forensic report qua the claim of the complainant. One Mr. Purushottam Sharma and one Mrs. Mahua Chakraborty visited the complainant firm's factory on 13.07.2018 and inspected the site and machine, in question and vide email dated 06.08.2018 sent the final report of investigation to the concerned surveyor. Further averred, that even the said surveyor never showed any interest to discuss the matter at hand with any technician or electronic expert or the manufacturers of the aforesaid machine. Thereafter, it was found that Sh.Rajan Sharda had advised the opposite party that claim of the complainant to be declared "no liability" vide report dated 27.08.2018 and then the opposite party / underwriters repudiated the claim of the complainant vide repudiation letter dated 15.10.2018. It was submitted that the qualification of Sh.Rajan Sharda is stated to be B.Com. (Hons.) F.C.A., Surveyor & Loss Assessor. As such, he is not qualified to assess the fire claim being a commerce graduate having no qualification for investigating fire loss or sufficiently understanding electrical/ electronic equipment and machines.
Even the loss assessed by the surveyor to the tune of Rs.4,75,668/- is absolutely arbitrary and vague. The surveyor has Consumer Complaint No.53 of 2019 4 also deducted the GST on each and every bill and then applied 80% depreciation, which is nowhere in the terms and conditions of the policy. The opposite party sent letter dated 29.10.2018 to the complainant annexing therewith the copies of the preliminary report, forensic report and the surveyor report. The complainant surprised to note that another forensic report dated 22.10.2018 had been issued by the Supreme Testing Lab & Forensic Evidence Protection Technology Pvt. Ltd., which is totally contradictory to its earlier report. The complainant, thereafter, demanded the copies of all reports and details thereof, Mr. P. Sharma issued a fresh forensic report dated 22.10.2018 at the behest of opposite party in a post haste manner changing the language and the details of the earlier report altogether. This act and conduct of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed on its part and prayed to grant the following reliefs:
i) to pay Rs.25,23,121/- along with interest @18% p.a. from the date of loss i.e. 30.06.2018;
ii) to pay a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant for mental harassment, physical harassment and monetary loss;
iii) to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation expenses; and
iv) any other order which this Commission deems fit be also passed.
2. Upon notice, opposite appeared and filed its written statement taking preliminary objections that this Commission does not have any jurisdiction. The complaint has been filed without valid and legal authorization in favour of its partner Sh.Vipul Kapoor Consumer Complaint No.53 of 2019 5 along with the minutes of meeting through which Sh.Vipul Kapoor was authorized by the complainant-firm to file the present complaint. The complainant obtained insurance for commercial purpose, as such, the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Act. The complaint involves disputed and complicated questions of facts and therefore, the remedy, if any available to the complainant is only to file a civil suit. The complainant has concealed material facts from this Commission. It is submitted that the opposite party issued the policy for the period 21.11.2017 to 20.11.2018 in favour of the complainant-firm and the same was duly received along with terms and conditions immediately after issuance of policy on 21.11.2017. The opposite party after receiving the information from the complainant-firm appointed Sh.J.S.Malhotra who visited the site on 30.06.2018 and 02.07.2018 and submitted his report to the opposite party on 10.07.2018. On asking, the complainant submitted his claim form with the opposite party. The opposite party-Insurance Company further appointed Sh.Rajan Sharda for the purpose of survey and assessment of fire loss of the complainant firm on account of fire occurred on 30.06.2018, who submitted his report on 27.08.2018. At the time of inspection on 09.07.2018, the complainant informed the surveyor that cause of fire was due to short-circuiting in external wire/cable. The surveyor further held that there was no sign of fire flames observed on damaged machine. The surveyor after computing the loss come to the conclusion that the insured had suffered the net Loss of Rs.4,51,884/-. The surveyor Sh.Rajan Sharda held in its report that as per Forensic Investigation report the origin of fire is Consumer Complaint No.53 of 2019 6 from within the Machine. Accordingly, as per Clause 7 of General Exclusion to Standard Fire Policy, the loss to Machine from which the fire originated is not payable and only loss to subsequent Machine if damaged by such fire is payable. The Insurance Company duly appointed Supreme Testing Lab and Forensic Evidence Protection Technology Private Limited to submit their independent report with regard to fire claim preferred by complainant-firm. Accordingly, the investigator after inspecting the premises on 13.07.2018, submitted his report. On merits, it is submitted that it is wrong that the unit was established in the year 2002 and is into the business of embroidery of Fabric and Dress Material. Further submitted that the complainant had never informed the Insurance Company or their investigator or surveyor that they had informed the manufacturer of the affected SCHIFFLI Embroidery Machine i.e. Saurer Textiles Solution Pvt. Ltd. It is submitted that the photographs annexed by the complainant does not prove that the fire marks are embossed on the trench near the time and the cause of fire was outside the machine and not within the machine. The other averments have been reiterated as detailed in the preliminary objections. Rest all the other averments have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. The complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the opposite party denying all the allegations made in the written statement and reiterated the averments made in the consumer complaint.
4. The complainant in support of his averments filed his affidavit dated 04.01.2019 along with photocopies of documents as Consumer Complaint No.53 of 2019 7 Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6, Ex.C-7(colly), Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-21, Ex.C-22(colly), Ex.C-23 to Ex.C-25. On the other hand, the opposite party filed the affidavit of Sh.Chander Mohan, Deputy Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. along with photo copies of document as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-15, and Ex.OP-16(colly).
5. In addition to that, cross-examination of Sh.Deepak Chauhan and Sh.Ravinder Kumar was done on the application of the opposite parties. Sh.Ravinder Kumar, Electrician, tendered his affidavit as Ex.CW-1/A and gave separate statement, whereas Sh.Deepak Chauhan tendered his affidavit as Ex.CW-2/A and also gave his separate statement.
6. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the complaint, written statement, evidence as well as written arguments filed by the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the opposite party has wrongly repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant-firm on the sole ground that the source of fire that took place at the insured premises on 30.06.2018 was within from the Schifflie Embroidery Machine EPOCO5. The onus to prove is upon the Insurance Company that the claim of the insured falls under the exclusion clause of the Insurance Policy. Further contended that the surveyor report and the forensic expert report relied upon by the opposite party are absolutely vague and self-contradictory having no substance whatsoever. The survey report dated 27.08.2018 clearly show that the surveyor has not made any application of mind while considering the claim of the complainant and only on the basis of vague and stereotyped forensic Consumer Complaint No.53 of 2019 8 investigation report, the surveyor has made the observations that the claim of the complainant is not payable since the cause of fire is within the machine. Further stated, that there were no such conclusive observations made in the forensic report. It was the bounden duty of the surveyor and the forensic expert that they should have contacted the electronic expert technician and its manufacturer of the machine, in question, while considering the cause of fire in the insured premises. Finally, it is prayed to allow the complaint by granting all the reliefs as prayed.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the complaint has not been filed by any valid and legal authorized representative. The complainant is not a consumer as the policy has been obtained by the complainant for commercial purpose. The complaint involves disputed and complicated questions of facts and therefore, the remedy, if any available to the complainant is only to file a civil suit. Learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the repudiation was made after thoroughly gone into the surveyor report and as per the terms and conditions of the policy. All the relevant documents and evidences are available in the record, on the basis of which the claim of the complainant was repudiated. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Finally, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with heavy costs.
9. Initially the opposite party raised an objection that the complaint is filed without valid and legal authorization in favour of its partner Sh.Vipul Kapoor along with minutes of meeting through which Sh.Vipul Kapoor was made authorized.
Consumer Complaint No.53 of 2019 9
10. As stated in the first para of the complaint, the complainant- firm is a registered partnership concern of Vipul Kapoor and Smt. Savita Kapoor. As per Authority Letter, Ex.C-25, Smt. Savita Kapoor, Partner has given the authority in favour of Sh.Vipul Kapoor to sign and present the complaint on behalf of the complainant-firm. Hence, the objection raised by the opposite party is not tenable.
11. We would also like to decide the other objections raised by the opposite parties that the complainant does not fall under the definition of 'consumer', as defined in the Act as the embroidery machine has been purchased for commercial purpose.
12. In this regard, we are fortified with the judgment reported in II (2005) CPJ 27 titled Harsolia Motors Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein it has been held as under:
"25.......it is apparent that even taking wide meaning of the words 'for any commercial purpose' it would mean that goods purchased or services hired should be used in any activity directly intended to generate profit. Profit is the main aim of commercial purpose. But, in a case where goods purchased or services hired in an activity which is not directly intended to generate profit, it would not be commercial purpose.
26. In view of the matter, a person who takes insurance policy to cover the envisaged risk does not take the policy for commercial purpose. Policy is only for indemnification and actual loss. It is not intended to generate profit."
13. In the instant case, the policy was obtained by complainant- firm only for indemnification and actual loss. It is not intended to generate profits. Therefore, the plea taken by the opposite party/ Insurance Company is not tenable and the complainant-firm is a consumer of the opposite party.
Consumer Complaint No.53 of 2019 10
14. The other objection raised by the opposite party that the complaint involves disputed and complicated questions of facts and therefore, the remedy, if any available to the complainant is only to file a civil suit.
15. In case we go through the pleadings of the parties, the complainant obtained Insurance policy for insuring building and machinery and as per the pleadings, the complainant alleged that due to short circuiting of wires a fire broke out, whereas the opposite party contended that the incident happened due to embroidery machine spark, which is not covered under the policy and is not payable as per the terms and conditions of the said policy, therefore, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated. It is only the interpretation of terms and conditions of insurance policy and documents produced before us and then to see as to whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties or not? We do not see that any complicated questions of law and facts are involved, which cannot be adjudicated by this Commission. In this regard, we are fortified by the judgment of 'Dr.J.J.Merchant and Ors. V. Shrinath Chaturvedi' 2002(6) SCC 635, wherein it was held that the State Commission and District Forum are headed by retired High Court Judges and Officers of District Judge level and in our view, this is not such a case which cannot be decided by the 'Consumer Fora' after obtaining evidence and if need be after getting an expert opinion. Therefore, the objection raised by the opposite party is rejected.
Consumer Complaint No.53 of 2019 11
16. Brief facts as per documents placed by parties in evidence are that the complainant -firm obtained a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy for the period from 21.11.2017 to 20.11.2018 for covering building and stocks/machinery for an amount of insured Rs.2.85 crore & paid a premium of Rs.44,844.75 vide Ex.C-1. On 30.06.2018, a fire broke out in the premises causing damage to one embroidery machine. The incident was entered in General Diary at Sr.No.30 on 03.07.2018 with Police Station Kamboj, vide Ex.C-4. On intimation to the opposite party, the opposite party deputed J.S.Malhotra, Surveyor and Loss Assessor who visited the insured premises on 30.06.2018 itself and submitted a preliminary report, vide Ex.C-6 with the following observations:
"On reaching at the premises of insured on 30.06.2016 Morning at about 11.00 AM, alongwith Mr.Sachin Bamotra, Asstt. Manager, UIIC, D.O.II, Amritsar, the fire was found already brought under control but marks of smoke were still there on the walls confirming fresh loss there.
On further checking the wooden frame lying near the machine to cover the trunch had been found completely burnt and the EPOCA 05 machines found badly affected due to fire and heat."
Sr.No. Description Qty. Remarks
1. Shuttle GuideS 01 Set Damaged due to
heat.
2. Boring Paul 300 Pcs.(Approx) Melted due to heat.
3. Level Indicator 01 No. Damaged due to
heat.
4. Neddle Paul 300 Pcs. (Approx.) Melted due to heat.
5. Card Servo Motor 01 No. Damaged due to
heat/fire
6. Linear Guide Rail 20 Pcs. (Approx.) Damaged due to
heat.
7. Servo Applifier 01 No. Damaged due to
Multiax heat/fire.
Consumer Complaint No.53 of 2019 12
17. On 09.07.2018, the opposite party-Insurance Company appointed Rajan Sharda, Surveyor and Loss Assessor to assess the loss. The surveyor Rajan Sharda submitted his report dated 27.08.2018, Ex.OP-6(colly) with the following remarks:
"As per Forensic Investigation Report the origin of fire is from within the machine. As per clause 7 of General Exclusions to (Standard Fire Policy the loss to machine from which the fire originated is not payable only loss to subsequent machine if damaged by such fire is payable. Thus, in light of this clause since the origin of fire is within the damaged machine no liability on account of damage to Schifflie Embroidery machine EPOCO5 is being recommended."
18. The insured lodged the claim for Rs.25,31,041/- towards cost of repair to damaged machine. However, the opposite party/ Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the basis of above survey report vide their letter dated 15.10.2018, Ex.C-17, with the following observations:
"Mr.J.S.Malhotra, appointed for preliminary survey and Sh.Rajan Sharda surveyor has been appointed to assess the alleged loss, who in his report dated 27.08.2018 has observed on the basis of Forensic Report that the source of fire was within the machine. That as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the loss to machine from which the fire originated is not payable, only the loss to subsequent machine is payable, if damaged by such fire. As such, the insurance co. is not liable for alleged loss/damage to Schifflie Embroidery Machine Model EPOCOS in the light of Exclusion clause 7 of the policy which reads as under:
"LOSS, DESTRUCTION OR DAMAGE TO ANY ELECTRICAL MACHINE, APPARATUS, FIXTURE OR FITTING ARISING FROM OR OCCASIONED BY Consumer Complaint No.53 of 2019 13 OVER RUNNING, EXCESSIVE PRESSURE, SHORT CIRCUITING, ARCING, SELF HEATING OR LEAKAGE OF ELECTRICITY FROM WHATEVER CAUSE (LIGHTNING INCLUDED) PROVIDED THAT THIS EXCLUSION SHALL APPLY ONLY TO THE PARTICULAR ELECTRICAL MACHINE, APPARATUS, FIXTURE OR FITTING SO AFFECTED AND NOT TO OTHER MACHINES, APPARATUS, FIXTURES OR FITTINGS WHICH MAY BE DESTROYED OR DAMAGED BY FIRE SO SET UP."
19. Now the issue is to decide, whether the fire originated within the embroidery machine or from outside the machine and the complainant is entitled to any relief/claim or not?
20. From the above, the survey report submitted by Sh.Rajan Sharda, B.Com. (Hons.) F.C.A. Surveyor & Loss Assessor was based upon the Forensic investigation report of the forensic expert i.e. Supreme Testing Lab and Forensic Evidence Protection Technology Private Limited (STEP). The said forensic expert visited the insured premises on 13.07.2018 and submitted his final report of investigation, vide Ex.C-13 dated 23.06.2018, (However the date was corrected as 23.08.2018, as per affidavit of Purushottam Sharma, CEO, Ex.OP-11) with the following remarks:
"The cause of fire might be the short circuit in the internal circuit of the machine."
21. As per the above report, it is evident that investigator was not sure that the fire originated has within the machine. Again the same investigator/forensic expert on the basis of the same visit on 13.07.2018 submitted a final report of investigation, vide Ex.C-20 dated 28.08.2018 with the following remarks:
Consumer Complaint No.53 of 2019 14
"The cause of fire is due to short circuit in the internal circuit of the machine. Hence, the fire start inside the machine."
22. In the affidavit, Ex.OP-11, the Forensic Expert i.e. Supreme Testing Lab and Forensic Evidence Protection Technology Pvt. Limited has stated that report sent on 23.08.2018, Ex.C-13 was preliminary report and the report sent on 28.08.2018, Ex.C-20 i.e. five days later was the final report. However, in both the reports in the head note, it is mentioned as Final Report of Investigation. Then how the report submitted on 23.08.2018 was preliminary report?
23. Again the Investigator submitted final report of investigation dated 22.10.2018 on the same visit of 13.07.2018 with the following observations:
"The cause of fire is due to short circuit in the internal circuits of the machine. Hence the fire start inside the machine."
24. The Forensic investigator submitted report dated 28.08.2018 and 22.10.2018 without revisiting the premises, therefore, the reports were without collecting any additional evidence from the insured premises. No reason of submitting the said reports dated 28.08.2018/22.10.2018 after the finalization of the survey report has been explained as the survey report was submitted by Sh.Rajan Sharda on 27.08.2018, vide Ex.OP-6.
25. We are of the opinion that the subsequent final report of investigator dated 28.08.2018 and 22.10.2018 were framed by the investigator i.e. Supreme Testing Lab & Forensic Evidence Consumer Complaint No.53 of 2019 15 Protection Technology Private Ltd. (STEP) without revisiting the insured premises and without any explained reason only to strengthen the repudiation of claim by surveyor/opposite party- Insurance Company. As the final report of investigator dated 23.08.2018 was not a conclusive report to evident that 'origin of fire is from within the machine' as accepted by the surveyor.
26. Also, the surveyor overlooked the report of the spot surveyor J.S.Malhotra, Surveyor and Loss Assessor who visited the insured venue itself on the date of incident i.e. 30.06.2018 and observed as under
"on further checking the wooden frame lying near the machine to cover the trench had been found completely burnt and the EPOCA 05 machine found badly affected due to fire and heat."
The complainant firm has placed an expert report of Deepak Chauhan of Garima Electronics Inc. who is well qualified BE Electronics and Communication stating that the fire incident which occurred is external to machine as per certificate issued by him vide Ex.C-9 dated 01.07.2018. The said expert also submitted a statement before the Bench in an cross-examination on dated 14.02.2020 as under:
"At about 2:30/3:00PM I reached the factory and inspected the control panel since my function was just relating to control panel including electric equipments, there was no fire trail on the panel, thereafter then I observed that one of the wooden plank has already burnt which was kept on side." Consumer Complaint No.53 of 2019 16
27. The said Deepak Chauhan further observed in para Ex.CW-1/A that these machines have fire proof circuiting and the MCB trips immediately in case of any short-circuit or any kind of electronic / electrical malfunctioning in the unit. These machines have a separate UPS and MCB which does not allow short circuiting or related malfunctioning. Also the manufacturer of the machine M/s Saurer Embroidery, vide Ex.C-21 dated 16.11.2018 reported that their machines have the best possible protection for electrical short circuits and therefore they never noticed any incident of fire directly with their machines, electronic components.
28. The report of Subhash Chander, Ex.C-4 pertains to the fact that he was in the bath room and somebody said him about the smoke coming out of the machine to which he stated that machine was on fire. The surveyor Rajan Sharda has also held in his report that they asked the supervisor to open the panel compartment. The compartment was opened and the wire cables moving inside the machine circuit were intact. The damages observed to plastic parts which had melted due to heat. From the above, it is evident that the short circuiting did not happen in the machine as the wire/ cables were found intact. It is only heat transferred from fire in the cable trench adjoining the machine due to short circuit that affected the wooden frame and subsequently the plastic parts resulting smoke coming out of the machine as observed by the first witness Subhash Chand.
28. In view of the above discussion, the conclusion drawn by the surveyor without looking into the report of spot surveyor and final report of investigator dated 23.08.2018 that the origin of fire Consumer Complaint No.53 of 2019 17 was within the machine is not justified. Therefore, the repudiation of claim dated 15.10.2018 is not in order and the complainant-firm is entitled to reimbursement of claim on account of damage to the machine, in question.
29. The complainant-firm lodged the claim vide claim form for fire and allied perils, Ex.OP-5 as per estimate for Rs.25,31,041/-. The surveyor in his report stated that the insured submitted the invoices of parts purchased along with proof of payment. The invoices submitted were all studied and found in order. However, the surveyor after deducting GST, 80% depreciation on parts assessed the loss to Rs.4,85,666/-. The surveyor has not explained any terms and conditions of policy, vide which GST and depreciation can be deducted. Without any provision in the policy, the surveyor is not justified in deducting GST and 80% depreciation.
30. We are of the opinion that if there are some flaws in the surveyor's report, it is not binding upon the insured/insurer. We are further fortified with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) CPJ 46 (SC) titled "New India Assurance Company Limited v. Pardeep Kumar" wherein it has been laid down that surveyor's report is not the last and final word. It is not that sacrosanct that it cannot be departed from; it is not conclusive. The approved surveyor's report may be basis or foundation for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured but surely such report is neither binding upon the insurer nor insured.
Consumer Complaint No.53 of 2019 18
31. In view of the discussions above, the complainant-firm is entitled to claim of Rs.25,31,041/- after deducting value of salvage Rs.10,000/- as worked out by the surveyor and 5% excess clause as per policy terms.
32. Sequel to the above discussions, the complaint filed by the complainant filed by the complainant is allowed and following directions are issued against the opposite party:
i) to pay Rs.23,94,989/- (after deduction of Rs.10,000/-
and excess clause 5% from Rs.25,31,041/-) along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of repudiation of claim till realization;
ii) to pay Rs.35,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses.
33. The opposite party is directed to comply with the above order within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
34. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) PRESIDING MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER March 17th ,2022 parmod