Insurance Company estopped from disputing factum of loss and reassessing damage after Surveyor appointed by it determined loss.

Mr. Justice S.S. Dewan, President—This is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act').

2. The issue herein lies in a narrow compass and the relevant facts are not in serious dispute. The complainant-Firm had taken out four insurance policies operative from different dates in the year 1989 and 1990 for a total sum of Rs. 4,50,000/-. It is alleged that on 23rd March, 1990 there was a fire in the factory premises of the complainant-Firm at Lehragaga in which it claimed to have suffered a loss of Rs. 5.5 lacs. The matter was reported to the Fire Station, Sangrur and the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Mansa was duly informed of the said incident on the same day. The opposite party offered to pay Rs. 84,074/- vide its letter dated 16.3.1993 (Annex. C-8). The said offer was not acceptable to the complainant. The surveyor appointed by the opposite party Insurance Company however, assessed the loss due to fire at Rs. 1,69,413/-. The complainant requested the opposite party to pay Rs. 2 lacs for the loss suffered by it but the latter refused to review its decision. Hence the complainant has filed this complaint for the recovery of Rs. 2 lacs together with interest @ 24% p.a. and Rs. 1 lac as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by it.

3. On notice being issued, the complaint was resisted by the opposite party by contending inter alia that they have assessed the damage/loss suffered by the complainant-Firm at Rs. 84,074/- as against his claim of Rs. 2 lacs; that the issue between the parties is not one that can be adjudged by this Commission; that even according to the complainant there has been breach of contract by the opposite party and the said matter cannot be adjudicated by this Commission; that this is not a case of deficiency in service to be rendered by the opposite party to the complainant; that the complainant had not suffered the loss of Rs. 2 lacs and that it is not entitled to the said amount.

4. In support of its case, the complainant put in 8 documents (Annexures C-1 to C-8) and the opposite party filed 9 documents (Annexures R-1 to R-9). In the rejoinder filed by the complainant, all the allegations made by it in the complaint were reiterated. No oral evidence was however, let in by either side.

5. The first point that arises for determination in this case is as to whether this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

6. Mr. Raj Kumar, learned Counsel for the opposite party has strenuously urged that as the dispute between the parties in this case is in regard to the quantum of damages suffered by the complainant, the Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the said point. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision in Janata Machine Tools v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., I (1991) CPJ 234 (NC). In the said case, the allegation of the complainant was that there had been deficiency in service of the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company after due investigation came to the conclusion that the claim put forward by the complainant was false. Under those circumstances, it was held by the National Commission that the said controversy between the parties cannot be decided by the Consumer Forum. In this case, the Insurance Company has assessed the damages at Rs. 84,074/- as against the claim of the complainant of Rs. 2 lacs. The Insurance Company has not come to the conclusion that the claim made by the complainant is false. Hence the decision relied upon by Mr. Raj Kumar is not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is clear from the decision of the National Commission in Shri Umedi Lal Aggarwal v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., I (1991) CPJ 3 (NC) that a fault or negligence in regard to the settlement of an insurance claim constitutes a 'deficiency' in service within the meaning of the Act. In that decision, the National Commission was pleased to observe that it is not possible to hold that t