IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision: 15.05.2017

First Appeal-829/2014

(Arising out of the order dated 05.05.2014 passed by the District Forum, Saini Encalve, Delhi in complaint case No. 903/12)

        In the Matter of:

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

1.             The appellant Insurance co. has preferred this appeal against the order date 05.05.2014 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Saini Enclave, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 903/12 whereby the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellant/OP to pay Rs. 5,17,207/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization and also awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the shop of the respondent/complainant was insured with appellant/OP vide Policy Cover No. 271601/48/2011/4339 which was valid from 30.11.2010 to 29.11.2011 for a sum of Rs. 78 lakhs. On 09.09.2011 due to heavy rain in Delhi, water entered into the shop of the respondent/complainant and many goods of the shop got wet and destroyed. The respondent/complainant immediately informed about the loss to the appellant/OP. Thereupon, appellant/OP appointed a surveyor M/s Adarsh Associates. The allegation of the respondent/complainant was that at the time of inspection, he had requested to the surveyor to depute a Civil Engineer/Architecture to assess the loss but the surveyor did not agree. The respondent/complainant submitted a claim of Rs. 8.4 lakhs before the appellant/OP but the surveyor assessed a loss of Rs. 5,17,207/-. The grievance of the respondent/complainant was that he completed all the formalities but the appellant/OP failed to settle the claim in spite of repeated demands and further his claim was repudiated by the appellant/OP without giving any logical ground on 27.12.2011. Hence, the complaint was filed before the Ld. District Forum by the respondent/complainant wherein he prayed for payment of Rs. 8.4 lakhs with interest @ 18% and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 25,000/- towards cost of litigation.

3.             Appellant/OP contested the claim and filed their written statement wherein it was admitted that the shop was insured with appellant/OP and it was also admitted that the respondent/complainant lodged a claim vide letter dated 10.09.2011 and the deputing of M/s Adarsh Associates and his visit on 14.09.2011  was also admitted. It was stated by appellant/OP in its written statement that although the surveyor assessed the loss of Rs. 5,17,207/- yet the appellant/OP was advised not to pay the claim on the ground that surveyor had observed signs of moisture/seepage/developing fungus etc. on the walls as well as on staircase leading to basement. The cement plaster and ceiling and walls of the basement were also found damaged/peeling off/ swollen at several places suggesting seepage of water in past. In its report the surveyor stated that cause of gaining/entry of water and accumulation in the basement was not known except that the draining pipe from washroom at first floor might have overflowed. The surveyor did not observe any significant sign of leakage of water from the washroom except that the wooden board provided at the side of stair case was swollen. According to surveyor report, the sewerage pipeline was completely choked which was b