ORDER

P.R. Shah, Member.—The present appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Vadodara (Additional) dated 29.01.2015 in complaint no.147/2007.

2. When matter came up for hearing Ld. Adv. Mr. R.P. Raval for the appellant was present. None appeared for the respondent.

Impugned judgment

3. Ld. District Commission vide its order which is under challenge, directed the opponent Insurance Company to pay to the complainant, Rs 4,91,284/-for damage to stock, Rs1,03,008/-for damage to furniture minus Rs 3000/-salvage coming to a total of Rs.5,91,292/- at 9% interest from 22.08.2005, and Rs.2,500/- as mental harassment and Rs.2,500/- for litigation costs.

Facts of the case

4. The complainant had obtained an insurance policy for his shop “Dipak Grain Shop” situated at the address mentioned in the complaint for the period 18.01.2005 to 17.01.2006. The sum insured of the policy bearing no.2000228 is Rs.16,75,000/-. Due to heavy rain and flood during 29.06.2005 to 02.07.2005, complainant’s shop was inundated in water and had therefore suffered heavy loss. Complainant informed the opponent about the damage caused in the heavy rain. Opponent had sent a surveyor who carried out inspection at the site and assessed the loss of Rs.7,00,000/-, however, the opponent instead of settling the claim, sent a second surveyor. The complainant produced on record certificate by Gram Panchayat stating that there was heavy loss to the stock of grains and furniture in the shop. The complainant had lodged the claim of Rs.7,00,000/- to the opponent insurance company but opponent insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 22.08.2005 on the ground that there are two buildings 100 feet away from each other and complainant had only one shop, whereas second premises is a godown. Complainant has explained to the opponent that entire building is one premise and not two as canvassed by surveyor. As such, there are two different divisions of the same shop, one is a retail outlet and other is stock in godown. Thus, both are in one premise only, and the entire premise is covered under the policy. But opponent did not give any response to the complainant. Therefore, complainant has filed the complaint before the Ld. District Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the opponent.

Arguments of the appellant/original opponent

5. It is argued by the Ld. Adv. for the appellant that as per the survey report on affidavit, there was no loss in the shop covered under the policy. It is contended by the appellant that the loss was reported for the godown which is 100 feet away and on separate premises and was not covered under the policy. It is submitted that the loss assessed by the surveyor is Rs.4,00,000/- and yet the Ld. District Commission has awarded the loss of Rs.5,91,292/- which is not the loss suffered by the insured as per the survey report. It is also alleged by the appellant that the Ld. District Commission has failed to consider the photographs of the two shops submitted by the appellant, which show that they are around 100 feet apart. It is further submitted that the insurance company has repudiated the claim as per the terms and conditions of the policy and that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the insurance company and therefore, the order of the Ld. District Commission is required to be quashed and set aside.

Arguments of Respondent/original complainant

6. The Ld. Adv. for the respondent submitted written submissions that there were no two different premises, but it is the same shop with only 20 feet space in between because of a staircase. It is contended that the insurance policy does not demarcate the shop with any different shop number. The respondent submits that one part of the shop was used for small items and cash counter and adjacent part separa