Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
KUM KUM SILK AND SAREES - Appellant
Versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 4416 of 2012 from Order dated 24.7.2012 in F.A. No. 300 of 2011 of Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad
Decided on : 21-05-2013
Insurance - Fire Insurance - Insurance Act, 1938, Section 64(2)UM - The court discussed the assessment of loss by the surveyor, the relevance of surveyor's report, and the principles of settling claims under the Insurance Act, 1938.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's firm suffered a fire accident, and the insurance company disputed the amount of compensation claimed by the complainant. The District Forum awarded a certain amount, which was challenged in appeal before the State Commission.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission found that the District Forum's award was based on a misappreciation of facts and law, and modified the compensation amount to a lower sum.
Issues: The main issue was the assessment of loss by the surveyor and the validity of the compensation amount awarded by the District Forum.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the surveyor's report has significant value unless proved otherwise, and the assessment of loss by the surveyor should be accepted unless arbitrary. The court also emphasized the principles of settling claims under the Insurance Act, 1938.
Final Decision: The State Commission allowed one appeal and modified the compensation amount, while dismissing the cross-appeal. The court directed the insurance company to pay the revised amount to the complainant.
ORDER
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member - This revision petition has been filed by the original complainant against the impugned order dated 24.7.2012 was passed by A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short "the State Commission") in FA No 300/2011 and FA No. 366/2011 both in Consumer Complaint 104/2010.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are the Petitioner/Complainant is a proprietary firm doing business in selling sarees and dress material on retail basis in Ananthapur. The complainant-firm insured its stock with the opposite party-Insurance Company under "Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy" bearing number 051004/11/08/11/00001686 covering for the period from 13.1.2009 to 12.1.2010. On 5.5.2009 at about 10.30 p.m. the complainant-firm premise set on fire due to short circuit resulting in damage to the stock and furniture of the complainant-firm. On receiving intimation the Fire Department arrived at the spot and extinguished the fire. The Fire and Emergency department, Ananthapur issued certificate to that effect and estimated loss of Rs. 25 lacs. The complainant-firm lodged complaint on 6.5.2009 with the Police registered as Crime No. 146/2009 and for Claim with the opposite party-Insurance Company. The opposite party deputed surveyor to assess the loss sustained by the complainant-firm. The surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 5,71,095.
2. The complainant contends that the surveyor demanded for certain amount which the complainant refused to pay and the complainant-firm got estimated the loss of the property by an engineer who assessed the loss to the wooden furniture at Rs. 3,94,860 and in addition to the amount, the complainant-firm sustained loss to the tune of Rs. 20 lakh, a total amount of Rs. 23,94,860. The complainant-firm restricted its claim to Rs. 20 lakh and got issued notice to the opposite party on 19.6.2010.
3. The claim was resisted on behalf of the opposite party-Insurance Company on the basis that the complainant is not a consumer; the insurance policy was obtained for commercial purpose; the matter involves complicated questions of facts which cannot be determined without elaborate evidence which can be possible in civil Court. The complainant firm had not submitted bank statement for the period from 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007, 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008, 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009 and 1.4.2009 to 31.5.2009 and charge-sheet, etc. inspite of request made through letters dated 17.8.2009, 8.10.2009, 21.6.2010 and 29.6.2010.
4. It is contended that the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 5,71,895 on all counts. The complainant filed some documents which were not submitted to the surveyor and fabricated for the purpose of filing the complainant. As per Section 64(2)UM of the Insurance Act the opposite party has right to settle claim for an amount different from that assessed by the surveyor. The complainant did not inform the opposite party at any time about the demand made by the surveyor. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
5. The proprietor of the complainant firm has filed his affidavit and the documents Exs. A1 to A10. On behalf of the opposite party, the Assistant Manager has filed his Affidavit and the documents Exs. B1 to B12.
6. The District Forum allowed the complainant on the basis of that the surveyor omitted to take into consideration of the value of the stock mentioned in the annexure Nos. 1 to XI of his report and the District Forum held the complainant entitled to the sum of Rs. 13,22,790 towards the loss sustained by the complainant-firm in the fire accident that occurred on 5.5.2009. The District Forum awarded interest @ 9 % p.a. and costs of Rs. 5,000.
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the respondent preferred an appeal being F.A. No. 300 of 2011 challenging the order of the learned District Forum; and the petitioner preferred a cross-appeal being F.A. No. 366 of 2011 of enhancement of the amount of compensation before th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
