ORDER :

M.A. No. 919 of 2018 (For Additional Evidence)

1. This application has been filed by the appellants for placing on record the insurance policy as additional evidence on the ground that the appellants inadvertently could not tender in evidence the insurance policy. In view of the reasons stated in the application and that the insurance policy is a vital document to decide the complaint/appeal. The application is allowed and the documents annexed with the application is ordered to be taken on the record.

Main Appeal

This order will dispose of the above noted two appeals, which have been preferred against the same order dated 24.3.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short “the District Forum”), whereby the complaint filed by the complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’), was accepted against the opposite parties and they were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 14,03,669 (Rs. 12,54,745 on account of machinery plus Rs. 1,46,924 on account of material) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization after deducting Rs. 7,58,797 already paid to the complainant. They were further directed to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation and Rs. 5,000 as litigation expenses.

2. Facts are taken from F.A. No. 322 of 2017. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum.

Facts of the Complaint

3. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint are that the complainant is the proprietor of M/s. Saroya Plastic Industries situated at Sangrur. He obtained a Fire Insurance Policy bearing No. 36130211150100000063 for the period 6.8.2015 to 5.8.2016 for the sum insured of Rs. 30,00,000. The complainant purchased the machinery by obtaining a loan from Union Bank of India, Sangrur Branch. The total cost of the purchased machinery was Rs. 15,43,028 (Rs. 8,64,308 + Rs. 6,78,720 vide bill Nos. 672 & 673, dated 21.2.2015 and 28.2.2015 respectively). On the intervening night of 27/28.2.2016, fire broke out in the factory. Fire Station Officer was informed accordingly, who controlled the fire. Thereafter, at the same time, intimation was given to Sr. Branch Manager of the OPs and also informed the Police Station, Sangrur. Thereafter, Assistant Sub-Inspector Police, Mehar Singh was deputed for inquiry who visited the spot and prepared his report. Sh. Parmod Mittal was appointed as surveyor by the OPs, who inspected the factory premises of the complainant on 28.2.2016 to assess the loss. Vide an e-mail dated 15.6.2016, the OPs asked the complainant to give his consent on the assessment made by the OPs but the complainant refused to do so as the cost of the stocks and machinery was assessed less i.e. Rs. 39,510 for stock and Rs. 9,92,450 for machinery. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 23.6.2016 was served upon the OPs. In reply to that, the OPs stated Rs. 7,58,797 has been paid to the Bank and nothing remains due against the OPs. It was further averred that the raw material was purchased by the complainant from a junk dealer w.e.f. 1.4.2015 to 24.2.2016 for a sum of Rs. 10,15,098 and whose entries are reflected in his account books. The total plastic scrap of Rs. 12,24,399.53 was lying in the premises at the time of occurrence. He further stated that due to typographical mistake insurance value of machinery to the tune of Rs. 25,00,000 and Rs. 5,00,000 value of stocks has wrongly been mentioned. The complainant is entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 12,24,399.50 on account of material and Rs. 14,55,000 on account of value of machinery. Whereas, the OPs paid Rs. 7,58,797 only. Therefore, net loss comes to Rs. 20,07,630.53. After deduction of Rs. 99,245 on account of depreciation of machinery the complainant is entitled to Rs. 19,08,385. Despite repeated requests the opposite parties did not come forward to settle the claim. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the oppo