IMPORTANT POINT
Assessment - Taking into consideration the extent of loss observed by the surveyor, the assessment of loss at Rs. 90,000/- made by the surveyor, cannot be justified and does not commensurate to the actual loss suffered by the complainant in the mishap / incident.

ORDER

D.S. Tripathi, President—This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 19.09.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar (in short “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 406 of 2015; Shivalik Rice and General Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited and another, by which the consumer complaint was allowed and the appellant – opposite parties was directed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 8,88,281/- to the respondent – complainant along with interest @6% p.a. from the date of institution of the consumer complaint, i.e., 26.08.2015 till the date of payment and Rs. 10,000/- as costs of litigation. It was also directed by the District Commission that a copy of the impugned judgment and order be sent to the surveyor – Absolute Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.

2. Facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are that according to the consumer complaint, the respondent – complainant had obtained Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy bearing policy No. 2960/52915951/00/000 from the appellant – insurance company in respect of the rice mill. The insurance policy was valid for the period from 08.02.2013 to 07.02.2014 and insured sum was to the tune of Rs. 91,00,000/-. Required premium was paid by the complainant to the insurance company in respect of the above policy. Heavy rainfall occurred on 16.02.2013, in which damage was caused to the rice mill. Boundary wall and walls of the mill premises got cracked and water entered into the mill premises, thereby causing damage to the floor of the mill and parapet wall (eqaMsj) of the godown was broken. Claim No. 12049137 was submitted before the insurance company for sum of Rs. 4,60,000/-. Thereafter, heavy rainfall again occurred on 16.06.2013, in which huge damaged was caused to the rice mill and stock of rice; stock of bardana; stock of husk as well as building got damaged. In respect of the said loss, claim No. 13013354 was submitted before the insurance company for sum of Rs. 7,59,906/-. However, the insurance company did not accept the claims according to the insurance policy. On the basis of wrong facts, the insurance company made payment of Rs. 90,000/- only as against the claim of Rs. 4,60,000/- and that of Rs. 2,41,625/- only as against the claim of Rs. 7,59,906/-, regarding which no explanation was tendered by the insurance company. A total amount of Rs. 8,88,281/- (Rs. 3,70,000/- plus Rs. 5,18,281/-) is still due against the insurance company in respect of both the above claims, regarding which several letters were sent to the insurance company, but the balance amount of claims was not paid by the insurance company. The action of the insurance company falls under the category of “deficiency in service”. Therefore, the consumer complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Commission.

3. The appellant – insurance company filed written statement before the District Commission, wherein it was pleaded that as per the loss assessed by the surveyor, amount of Rs. 90,000/- and Rs. 2,41,625/- has already been paid to the complainant, who has received the same in full and final satisfaction. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company. The consumer complaint has been filed without any basis, hence the same is liable to be dismissed.

4. After giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, the consumer complaint has been decided by learned District Commission vide impugned judgment and order dated 19.09.2019, thereby allowing the consumer complaint in the above terms. Feeling aggrieved, the insurance company has come up in this appeal.

5. We have heard rival arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. There is no dispute with regard to the insurance and the loss having taken place during the currency of the insurance policy. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company vehemently submitted that