Surveyor's report on loss assessment is definitive unless credibly challenged; insurer's actions were not deemed deficient.

ORDER

DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER

1. The present First Appeal (FA) has been filed by the Appellant against Respondent as detailed above, under section 19 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 09.03.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 73/2016 inter alia praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 09.03.2017 passed by the State Commission.

2. W hile the Appellant was Complainant before the State Commission, the Respondent was Opposite Party in the said CC/73/2016 before the State Commission. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 08.12.2017. Parties filed their W ritten Arguments/Synopsis on 10.10.2022 (Appellant) and 28.03.2025 and 13.10.2025 (Respondents). For the sake of convenience, parties will also be referred to as they were arrayed before the State Commission.

3. Brief facts of the case as presented by the complainant and as emerged from the First Appeal, Order of the State Commission and other case records are that: -

3.1 The complainant availed insurance coverage for the stock of cosmetic items and cash retained in the business premises, under Insurance Policy No. 2939/51536360/03/000 issued by the Opposite Party (O.P.) for the period commencing 21.07.2014 and expiring on 20.07.2015. The said insurance contract was facilitated via Karnataka Bank, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) where the complainant maintained a cash credit facility. The policy schedule provides for coverage in distinct segments: Schedule A insures cosmetic stock for Rs.52,00,000, Schedule B covers burglary and robbery for Rs.53,00,000, Schedule C stipulates a sum assured for monetary loss of Rs. 1,00,000, while Schedule J sets the sum assured for public liability at Rs. 10,000, with premiums paid commensurate to the aggregate risk insured.

3.2 On 29.11.2014, a fire broke out in the shop premises of the complainant, resulting in destruction of goods, including insured cosmetic items and burning of cash aggregating Rs.55,000. The incident was reported to the O.P., which deputed a Surveyor from Delhi to assess the quantum of the loss. Statutory intimation was given by the complainant to the Fire Brigade, Karnataka Bank, and the local police authorities.

3.3 JIHGTFEhDeC BcAomplainant had submitted a claim form reflecting the loss: Rs.39,55,000 for cosmetic stock and Rs.55,000 for cash. Subsequently, the O.P. tendered a discharge voucher for Rs.7,63,106 as full and final settlement of the claim. The complainant registered his protest and lack of consent, Subsequently the O.P. deposited the sum in the Karnataka Bank account via NEFT, whereupon the bank adjusted the funds against the complainant's cash credit.

3.4 The complainant, through legal correspondence dated 13.11.2015, objected to unilateral disbursement of the settlement amount without explicit or informed consent, and offered restitution of the sum should the O.P. so desire. The complainant filed complaint before the State Commission, for the recovery of the actual loss and compensation for consequential mental hardship and distress suffered due to the O.P.'s deficient and unfair conduct. The State Commission Vide Order dated 09.03.2017, dismissed the complaint.

4. Appellant has challenged the Order dated 09.03.2017 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

i) The State Commission failed to observe that the appellant did not violate any terms or conditions of the insurance policy in question. As detailed in Schedule A of the policy, the cosmetic stock was insured for Rs. 52,00,000/-; according to Schedule B, the sum assured for burglary and robbery was Rs. 53,00,000/-; as per Schedule C, the money was insured for Rs. 1,00,000/-; and