IMPORTANT POINT
Where claim filed by the claimant is not settled by the insurer within a reasonable period, it amounts to deficiency in service.

Smt. Veena Misra, Member—This order will govern disposal of appeal Nos. 657/09 & 658/09 preferred against order dated 22.10.2009 passed in complaint case No. 68/09 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called “District Forum” for short). Complainant has preferred appeal No.657/09 for enhancement of awarded amount, whereas another appeal, bearing No.658/09, has been preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the award.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are that the complainant had obtained fire policy bearing No. 230/08 from the OP for the period from 19.2.2008 to 18.2.2009. Proprietor of the complainant firm had closed the shop at about 8.00 p.m. on 19.8.2008 and went to cinema while he was coming back he checked the shop and found that there was fire in the shop. Fire Brigade was informed. Entire contents/items kept in the shop including grocery items, Tea, Babaji Namkeen, Coconut Oil, Toothbrush etc were totally burnt causing loss of Rs.6,00,000 to the complainant. Besides this, the building and furniture were also damaged which caused loss of Rs.2,00,000. Thus total damage caused was Rs.8,00,000. On 25.11.2008, the complainant laid claim before the insurer together with various documents. The complainant was unable to produce sale register and he had expressed his inability vide letter dated 22.12.2008 to the effect that the register was kept in the shop and was burnt in fire. For a long time the complainant received no information from the insurer and vide letter dated 16.3.2009 requested the insurer to decide the claim but the claim was not decided, hence complaint was filed before the District Forum.

3. In the written version, it was averred by the OP that the complainant intimated about fire accident to the insurer on 20.8.2008. Insurer had appointed Surveyor and Loss Assessor Mr. H.K. Tiwari, who assessed the loss at Rs.52,362. Report of Shri Tiwari was received on 31.3.2009. It was further averred that together with letter dated 12.6.2009 the Insurance Company had sent a discharge voucher for a sum of Rs.52,099 and requested the complainant to sign the same so that the said amount may be paid to him but the complainant had not returned the discharge voucher. Hence, there was no deficiency on part of the insurer. It was further averred that the claim was not repudiated by the insurer, hence the complaint was premature and deserves to be dismissed on this ground.

4. On the basis of material placed before it, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the insurer was liable to pay a sum of Rs.l,68,967 to the complainant together with Rs.5,000 towards mental harassment and Rs.l,000 towards cost of litigation within a period of one month. In case of default in payment during that period, interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of order was also payable. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, both the parties have preferred appeals under consideration. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred in this order as complainant and OP.

5. Final arguments heard. Record perused carefully.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant in appeal No. 657/09 submitted that though the District Forum has partly allowed the complaint but the complainant has not been fully compensated for the loss suffered by him. He further submitted that the complainant had filed copies of various documents such as stock register, various bills, statement given by the Chartered Accountant etc. but the said documents had not even been referred in the impugned order. It has not been mentioned as to why the same documents have not been relied. He further submitted that it is evident from the photographs produced by the complainant that the complainant had suffered immense damage. Learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the District Forum has totally ignored the documents relating to Tea, Toothbrush, Toast, Babaji Narnkeen and thereby has not allowed the claim regarding said i