ORDER

HON’BLE MR. DINESH SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER

       Taken up through video conferencing.

1.    This Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the ‘Act 1986’), challenging the Order dated 16.07.2015 in C. C. No. 85 of 2011 passed by The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (the ‘State Commission’).

2.    Heard arguments from Mr. Mukund Gupta, Advocate, learned counsel for the Appellants (the ‘Complainant Firm’) and Mr. Kishore Rawat, Advocate, learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1 to No. 3 (the ‘Insurance Co.’).

Vide Order dated 27.08.2020, the Respondent No. 4 (the ‘Surveyor’) was deleted from the array of the parties.

Perused the material on record including inter alia the impugned Order dated 16.07.2015 of the State Commission and the Memorandum of Appeal. 

3.    Admitted facts are that the Complainant Firm is running an Oil Mill. It took a Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy. The premium was paid. The policy was valid. A fire broke out in the insured premises in the night of 09.05.2011. The Insurance Co. was intimated. Survey was conducted. The Complainant Firm claimed loss of Rs.27,90,299/-. The Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.5,70,187/-. The Insurance Co. settled the claim at Rs.5,70,187/- i.e. at the loss assessed by its Surveyor.  Aggrieved, the Complainant Firm filed a Complaint before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its impugned Order of 16.07.2015 dismissed the Complaint.

4.    The State Commission in passing its Order of 16.07.2015 has determined that the Surveyor’s Report which assessed the loss at Rs.5,70,187/- is reliable and no deficiency on the part of the Insurance Co. is made out in settling the claim at the loss assessed by its Surveyor. Resultantly, it has dismissed the Complaint.

The State Commission has summarized its examination in paras 13 to 17 of its impugned Order, reproduced below for ready reference:

13.       Similarly, the surveyor allowed damage to the 387.5 Qtls of cotton seed cake @50% as the same was found partially affected. Whereas complainant has claimed loss to whole of stock shown as balance in the books, which cannot be accepted without physical verification by Surveyor

14.       M/s Mittal Surveyors Private Ltd., who is IRDA authorized surveyor, has given detailed reasons in his report for assessing the loss. He also gave reasons for working out the rates applicable on the basis of record supplied by complainant. After taking into account those rates, the total loss was assessed as under: