IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance Company is not justified in appointing one Surveyor after another.

Mrs. Vineeta Rai, Member—This First Appeal has been filed by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Opposite Party before the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) and Appellant herein being aggrieved by the order of that Commission which had allowed the complaint of deficiency in service filed against it in not settling the claim as per the insurance policy and unjustifiably offering a lesser amount which was not acceptable to Yashowanta Narayan Dixit, Complainant

before the State Commission and Respondent herein.

2. Facts of the case as per the Respondent/Complainant are that he was engaged in the business of oil extraction in the name and style of Dixit Oil Industries for self-employment and had taken an insurance policy from the Appellant/Insurance Company to cover loss or damage to his unit for a sum of Rs.33 lakhs by paying a premium of Rs.5280/- and Rs.2475/- for special peril of Floods for the period 04.09.1999 to 03.09.2000 vide Policy No. 2000/192 dated 06.09.1999. On 29.10.1999 during the validity of this policy, there was a super cyclone followed by heavy torrential rain in the entire coastal area of Orissa, including Bhadrak town where the Respondent/Complainant’s business was located. Because of the cyclone and heavy rains and due to overflowing of the river Salandi the entire business premises of the Respondent/Complainant was flooded and remained under 4 to 6 feet of water for about four days and as a result raw material (mustard seeds), mustard oil in tanks and it’s by-product i.e. Khal (de-oiled cakes) were washed away or spoiled. The entire stock became unfit for human consumption. When the situation improved after some days, Respondent/Complainant vide letter dated 02.11.1999 informed the Appellant/Insurance Company giving a brief picture of the damage which was roughly estimated to be Rs.27.21 Lakhs. It was contended that four Surveyors were appointed one after the other, namely, M/s R.P. More And Associates, who visited the Respondent/Complainant’s premises and also asked him to send some oil for laboratory tests. Thereafter another Surveyor - M/s D.S. Consolt & Network Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar was appointed who confirmed that the water had entered into the godown causing damage to the mustard seeds etc. but instead of settling the claim, Appellant/Insurance Company appointed yet another Surveyor - M/s S. Soni & Co. who again inspected the premises and sought certain clarifications which were supplied. However, even after this, instead of settling the claim Appellant/Insurance Company appointed a fourth Surveyor - M/s Sanjeeb Kumar Mohanty And Associates. As per the assessment of this Surveyor which was based on the survey reports of the three earlier Surveyors, Appellant/Insurance Company offered the Respondent/Complainant a sum of Rs.2,98,145/- in settlement of the insurance claim which was not accepted since it was well below the actual loss caused due to damaged goods. Being aggrieved by the deficiency in service on the part of Appellant/Insurance Company, Respondent/Complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission and requested that Insurance Company be

directed to settle the claim for a total amount

of Rs.69,06,685/- as per the following break

up :

“1. Loss sustained due to super cyclone & flood covered under the policy Rs.27,21,685.00

2. Business loss Rs.05,00,000.00

3. Loss of business goodwill Rs.05,00,000.00

4. Payment of interest to the bank + Interest to be paid in future Rs.07,00,000.00

5. Expenses incurred for writing letter, going to the offices of the OPs etc. Rs.00.25,000.00

6. Damages / Compensations for sufferings / harassment / humiliation / psychological trauma Rs.10,00,000.00

7. Interest @ 18% on the amount to be awarded from 29&30/10/1999 till the date of payment pendent lite and future interest Rs.14,60,000.00

Rs.69,06,685.00”

3. Appellant/Insurance Company on being served filed a written rejoinder refutin