CHUNI LAL Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is an admitted case of the parties that appellant has got his house together with a T.V. and other household effects insured with the respondent. It was a double storeyed house situated at Village Beasar. On the intervening night of 16th & 17th June, 2004, fire broke out in that house and the same was reduced to ashes along with whatever was lying inside it. Report No. 55 was recorded in Rapat Rojnamcha (daily diary register) of the Police Station in this behalf. As a result of this fire, appellant was suffering hardship and was on road. He asked the respondent to pay the amount on 15.7.2004 and was informed on 25.11.2004 regarding settlement of his claim in the sum of Rs. 58,445. This was not acceptable to him as it was illegal, wrong, arbitrary as well as contrary to the terms of the Insurance Policy. Claim according to the respondent was not to be settled for total sum insured as well as per valuation got made by the appellant. There being deficiency in service, hence the complaint. Claim of the appellant was contested and resisted by the respondent. By way of preliminary objections, it was pleaded that complaint was not maintainable as there was no deficiency in service because respondent had settled the claim and offered the amount to the appellant. There being arbitration clause in the policy, the Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. Settlement offered at Rs. 58,445 was in terms of the policy. Insurance of residential house as well as household effects in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000 was admitted. House was insured for Rs. 2,50,000, T.V. set for Rs. 10,000 and articles lying in the house for Rs. 40,000. Loss of golden and silver jewellery to the extent of Rs. 25,000 was denied.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant urged that this is a case of fire to the insured assets, therefore, his client is entitled to the full amount of Rs. 3,00,000. No deductions any whatsoever is to be made. This stand has been contested on behalf of the respondent. As according to its learned Counsel, his client is liable to pay the amount as per Surveyor s report who acts independently having been appointed by Government of India. In this behalf, he placed reliance on the survey report of Engineer Mohinder Kumar Sharma, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, and other documents filed by this Valuer. As such, according to Mr. Thakur, whatever amount has been offered to the appellant on the basis of the report of the Surveyor, calls for no interference and claim of the appellant in this behalf merits rejection. Another reason given by Mr. Thakur is that appellant could not produce the bill of T.V. set as well as of household effects which were burnt in the house as a result of the fire in question. Objection was also raised regarding quantification and quality of construction of the house. Therefore according to him, the report of the Surveyor justifies the amount offered. This argument prima facie appears to be quite attractive. However, when examined in depth, it is without any basis either in law or in the facts and circumstances of this case. Reason being that when insurance was done in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000, break -up whereof is given hereinabove, we presume that the needful was done by the respondent it must be on being satisfied about the quality, quantification and age of the building in question as well as regarding cost of T.V. set and household effects. Respondent cannot be allowed to now argue that when it comes to insure a particular house along with its household effects as in the present case, its valuation will be something else and when it comes to settlement of the claim in the event of mishap as in the present case, yardstick will be different. We will go even to the extent of holding that it is only after being satisfied at the time of insurance regarding cost of the house as well as the T.V. set and other household effects that those were insured in the total sum of Rs. 3,00,000 and premium was charged after the person who insured was satisfied regarding the valuation of what was insured. If he was not satisfied then why it was insured in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000 in the present case, learned Counsel for the respondent -Insurance Company had no answer. If the plea of the respondent is accepted, it will tantamount to putting premium on the acts of the insurer like respondent in the present case in alluring a person to get his assets insured and then when it comes to payment in the event of mishap to deny the legitimate claim It is nowhere pleaded by the respondent that insurance undertaken by its staff of the assets of the appellant was the result of either mis -statement or any other legitimate ground on which a contract can be legitimately avoided. Nor such a plea can be allowed to be put up by the respondent because it had offered the amount as noted hereinabove after having insured the house, T.V. set and other household effects for Rs. 3,00,000. Moreover in case of fire no deduction is to be made especially when the insured assets as in the present case had been reduced to ashes.

(3.) THIS matter had been otherwise set at rest by the National Commission in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd and Anr. v. M/s. Girdhari Lal Tulshiramji Joshi, 1997 1 CPJ 50. Nothing to the contrary was brought to our notice so as not to accept this view.