IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance Company would not be justified in offering settlement of claim on basis of preliminary surveyor's assessment report when final surveyor had assessed the loss on examination of accounts and all facts and circumstances.

V.K. Agarwal, President - This complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been filed praying that an amount of Rs. 32,72,0.14/- be directed to be paid by opposite parties to the complainant.

2. Undisputably, the complainant had obtained Insurance Policies covering the risk of his Plant, Machinery, Building and Stock from the opposite parties. The said Insurance Policies No. 152601/11/51/2001 and 348/01 covered the risk for the period from 5.10.2000 to 4.10.2001. It is also not in dispute that the building of cold storage and the stock kept therein, covered by the said policy was damaged in an incident of fire which took place on 9-2-2001. The complainant informed the opposite parties/insurers about the said incident upon which the opposite party/insurer appointed surveyor Hitesh K. Chitalia, who conducted preliminary spot survey. The opposite parties, thereafter, appointed M/s. A.K. Gupta & Associates, Delhi, for final survey to assess the loss. The complainant averred that his total claim for the loss was for an amount of Rs. 2,49,21,858/- which was submitted by him to the opposite parties. The complainant averred that the surveyor M/s. A.K. Gupta & Associates assessed the loss at Rs. 99,24,060/-. The opposite parties paid the complainant Rs. 40 lakhs on 17.7.2000 as preliminary payment and thereafter payment of Rs. 15 lakhs was further made on 24.1.2002. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 55 lakhs only was paid to the complainant. The opposite party No.2 intimated the complainant by letter dated 20.3.2002 that in view of the report of the Hitesh Chitalia, full and final settlement of the complainants claim is proposed to be made for Rs. 64,38,986/- The complainant however, intimated the opposite party No.2 that he does not agree to the settlement of the claim as above, and requested that his claim be settled at Rs. 99,24,060/- as assessed by surveyor M/s. A.K. Gupta & Associates. It was averred that Hitesh chitalia had only conducted preliminary survey and he did not undertake necessary investigation and enquiry to ascertain the actual loss. Therefore, the assessment of the loss on the basis of his alleged report was not justified. It was further averred that on 9.11.2002, the complainant had accepted Rs. 64,38,986/- under protest which were paid to him by the opposite parties as a settlement of the claim as per alleged report of Hitesh Chitalia. The complainant, therefore, prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay him Rs. 32,72,014/-, being the difference of the amount of compensation as assessed by M/s. A.K. Gupta & Associates, after adjusting the amount of Rs. 64,38,986/- paid to him.

3. The opposite parties in their written version resisted the claim of the complainant. It was averred that Hitesh Chitalia was appointed as preliminary surveyor while M/s. A.K. Gupta & Associates were appointed as final surveyor. It was further averred that the complainant is claiming an inflated amount• and that opposite parties have paid to the complainant the amount of Rs. 64,38,986/- in full and final settlement of his claim, on the basis of the report of Hitesh Chitalia. It was averred that complainant was not entitled to get any additional amount. It was also averred that complainant had not raised consumer dispute and a Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint.

4. It may be noticed that the opposite parties have raised the objection regarding jurisdiction and maintainability of the complaint but the said aspects have not been pressed at the time of final hearing. It may also be noticed that complainant has undisputably, insured Building, Plant, Machinery and Stock etc. with the opposite parties and had paid premium. His complaint is regarding deficiency in service by the opposite parties in not paying the amount due to him under the said policy. The complainant has thus raised a consumer dispute. Therefore, there is hardly any doubt that complaint is maintainable