Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7.       The Ld. Counsel for the respondent, however, stated that the surveyor in his conversation with the complainant had pressurised him to sign the letter dated 23.08.99 to the complainant.  Moreover, the insurance company had directly transferred the amount in question to the Kerala Finance Corporation and upon learning about the same, he had sent a legal notice to the OP insurance company and then filed the consumer complaint in question.  The Ld. Counsel argued that the incident of fire and consequential damage had nowhere been denied by the other party and the evidence produced by them was unchallenged.  The Insurance Company had no evidence to say that the fire was an act of arson.  Further, if the insurance company thought it to be an act of arson, they should not have paid even the part amount of ₹2.38 lakh to the Kerala Finance Corporation.  The version given by the insurance company that there was mistake on their part in making that payment as well, was not acceptable because in that case, the said insurance company could have started recovery proceedings against them.  The Ld. Counsel further stated that there was no reason for the insurance company to change the surveyor.  Moreover, the delay in the settlement of the claim had not been explained by them.