SURINDER MOHAN Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? complaint, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay insurance claim, in respect of the insured building and the household goods, which were gutted in a fire and also to pay compensation for wrongfully reducing the quantum of insurance claim, which caused mental tension and harassment, besides seeking litigation expenses.

(2.) ADMITTED facts are that the complainants had a three -storeyed building, comprising of a shop and residential accommodation. The building and the household goods were insured with the opposite parties, through two separate policies. The policies were effective from 13.09.2011. The building was insured in the sum of Rs. 15.00 lacs, against policy, Annexure R -2, while the household goods were insured in the sum of '4.50 lacs, vide policy, Annexure R -1. On 18.03.2012, or say about six months after the policies were purchased, a devastating fire broke out in the locality, in which the building was situated. Several buildings, including that of the complainants, which was insured with the opposite parties, were gutted in that fire.

(3.) COMPLAINANTS ' building together with household goods was completely destroyed. Intimation of the fire incident was given to the opposite parties promptly. They deputed a preliminary Surveyor, who confirmed that the building had been completely gutted in the fire. Investigation was also got done by the opposite parties. Investigator reported, vide report, Annexures R -8 and R -9, that the fire broke out in the locality, in which several buildings were destroyed. According to him, no mischief had been played by the complainants and for that matter any other person, to cause the fire. A final Surveyor deputed by the opposite parties submitted reports, Annexures R -12 and R -13, per which the building had been completely destroyed. The Surveyor, however, observed that the building, as per investigation conducted, was about sixty years' old and with this observation, he reduced the amount of claim for the loss of building to 1/3rd and recommended payment of Rs. 6,40,079/ -. As regards household goods, the Surveyor though noticed that all the insured household goods had been completely destroyed, he recommended payment of a sum of Rs. 1,99,642/ - only with the observation that the vouchers of the goods having not been produced, their value was required to be reduced to 50%, because of depreciation. He further reduced the figure arrived at after reducing it by 50%, by 5%, on account of salvage value.