IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Hearsay – No documentary evidence in regard to financial stress of the insured has been brought on record and this assertion is merely a hearsay.
(2) Sampling – A mere sampling of some bills cannot be used to discard entire transactions of the insured, that have been already verified by the investigator.
(3) Genuine transactions – The surveyor, being a Chartered Accountant, has lifted the veil over the insured’s so called genuine transactions.
(4) Surveyor – It is settled law that the survey report is not the last and final word and can be departed if there are sufficient reasons to rebut the same.

ORDER

This appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) in challenge to the Order dated 10.08.2020 of the State Commission in complaint no. 182 of 2018 whereby the complaint was partly allowed.

2. We have heard the learned proxy counsel for the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘insurance company’) and the learned counsel for the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’) and perused the record including the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 10.08.2020 and the memorandum of appeal.

3. The appeal has been filed with reported delay of 43 days.

In the interest of justice, inter alia considering the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant, through its proprietor Mr. Vikas Sharma, had obtained a Standard Fire and Special Perils Insurance Policy for a total sum insured of Rs. 81 lakh against the stocks of pharmaceuticals items like medicine syrups, tablets etc. including the furniture kept at his business premises. The premium was paid and the policy was valid for the period from 09.09.2016 to 08.09.2017. During the subsistence of the insurance policy, in the intervening night of 1st & 2nd February, 2017, a fire took place, resulting which, the entire stocks got damaged / burnt. It is averred that timely information with regard to the fire was given to the police as also to the insurance company. The complainant submitted a claim of total sum insured, after completing all the required formalities.

5. The insurance company appointed a surveyor, who conducted a survey and assessed the loss at Rs. 4,53,849/-. It is further averred most of the stocks melted, converted in dilapidated material and was beyond recognition and this fact was brought to the notice of the surveyor, as such, the complainant was asked to dispose of the salvage. The grievance of the complainant is that the surveyor while assessing the loss totally ignored the value of stocks, which were completely destroyed and turned into ashes, even after clearly opined by the investigator that the cause of fire was genuine. The insurance company passed a claim of Rs. 4,53,840/- only against the sum insured of Rs. 81 lakh.

6. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission.

7. The State Commission vide impugned Order dated 10.08.2020 partly allowed the complaint and directed the insurance company, jointly and severally to pay the claim amount equal to the sum assured (Rs. 81 lakh), after deducting the amount of the stocks, if any, which went safe and also held safe for human consumption, as per the report of the Drug Inspector concerned, along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum and lumpsum compensation of Rs. 1 lakh for mental agony, harassment, deficient services and also litigation expenses.

8. Aggrieved by the said Order of the State Commission, the insurance company filed the instant appeal before this Commission.

9. Learned proxy counsel for the insurance company has argued that the State Commission had discarded the surveyor’s report and allowed the amount of sum insured. It was further argued that the State Commission ignored the facts that the surveyor had asked for the books of accounts, which were partly lying in the office of Chartered Accountant and apparently in the lap top, which was said to be burnt in the fire and the insured did not produce the documents. The surveyor did not find anything except the inverter and the battery and printer at the insured premises and there was no sign of burnt laptop. Further, the surveyor repeatedly asked the insured to segregate the damaged stock which was not done. As per the final survey report, it was only the carton boxes which got burnt and the medicines were scattered on the floor and the inventory of each and every item of damaged and safe stock was taken in the presence