IMPORTANT POINT
The assessment of loss, claim settlement and relevance of survey report depends on various factors.

ORDER

Prem Narain, Presiding Member—The present consumer complaint has been filed by Sportking Synthetics against the opposite party - United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and Anr. (in short, ‘the insurance company’).

2. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant took three policies from the opposite party insurance company (i) the first policy was for a sum of Rs.50,00,00,000/- vide policy no.200700/11/09/11/00000019 valid from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010; (ii) the second policy was for a sum of Rs.205,50,00,000/- vide policy no. 200700/11/09/11/00000020 valid from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010; and (iii) the third policy for a sum of Rs.60,00,00,000/- vide policy no. 200700/11/09/07/00000026 valid from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010.

3. On 27th June 2009, at about 11.30 p m Shri Mohinder Singh Yadav, Finishing Supervisor who was on night duty, during routine checking, when he reached near the packing section gate, he found fire flames in the packing section. He immediately called few workers and with the help of fire extinguishers tried to control the fire. Security was also informed at the factory gate about the fire. The fire was uncontrollable and it spread to adjoining finished goods godown and stores godown. Within no time the fire took a serious magnitude and the entire packing section, finished goods godown and stores godown were involved in fire. Senior officers of the management were also informed and meanwhile fire tenders also reached the premises to control the fire. Finally the fire could be controlled in around 3 hours’ time. Complainant reported the incident of fire to the police station Sahnewal. Fire department was also informed which took necessary steps. The fire department subsequently issued a fire report and was paid a sum of Rs.7600/- with regard to their charges. Complainant filed the claim form with the opposite party – insurance company giving the details of the loss suffered by them for Rs.3,36,02,215/-.

4. On 14.07.2009 the opposite party appointed Shri Vinod Sharma as surveyor who surveyed the premises and submitted the preliminary survey report dated 14.07.2009. The said surveyor submitted the final survey report on 29.12.2009. The opposite party kept the complainant in total dark and did not intimate the outcome of the survey and also did not supply them with the copy of the survey report. On repeated communications and request made by the complainant to settle their claim, the opposite party finally on 30.03.2010 through their representative informed the complainant over telephone that they have settled the claim of the complainant at Rs.1,48,42,708/-. It was stated by the opposite party – insurance company that a cheque of Rs.1,48,30,023/- after deducting premium of Rs.12,685/- will be released to the complainant only after they sign the claim settlement voucher. The complainant accordingly signed the voucher and cheque for Rs.1,48,30,023/- was received. The complainant sent a protest letter to the insurance company on the very next day, i.e., 01.04.2010 against the receipt of such a settlement voucher and categorically stated that the said settlement voucher is signed under compelling circumstances and the receipt of payment against the said voucher shall be treated as provisional payment received under protest.

5. It has been alleged that while the settlement voucher was sent to the insurance company, the surveyor report was not made available to the complainant. Complainant after filing the application under RTI Act got the copy of the surveyor’s report on 14.05.2010. When the voucher was signed the complainant had not seen the surveyor’s report and the complainant was kept in the dark. However, after seeing the surveyor’s report, it was found that there were many lacunae in the report of the surveyor and therefore, the complaint has been filed for the payment of the remaining amount of the claim. The following prayers have been made in the complaint:

1. Dec