NEEL KAMAL HOSIERY Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this complaint, it is alleged that the opposite party has been deficient in rendering the service to the complainant in not settling the complainants insurance claim. Shortly stated the facts are that the complainant had obtained the shopkeeper insurance policy dated 21-6-1990 which was valid for a period upto 7-03-1992. The said policy is named as "shopkeeper policy" and covers loss of building, shop and all kinds/type of cloth, hosiery, garment and such other materials belonging to the complainant. The complainant alleged that in a devastating fire on 13-5-1991 between 3.30 to 7.30 a.m., the entire shop was reduced to ashes. The complainant lodged a report to the police on the same day and also intimated the occurance of fire to the opposite party. The opposite party conducted the survey of the incident of fire through the surveyor, M/s. Jodh Joshi & Co., and M/s. Maharashtra Surveyor. A preliminary report of the said surveyor dated 17-7-1991 has been appended with the list of shops which were damaged in the said fire. The complainant name appears at serial number 10. It is mentioned in the said report that the complainants shop has been turned to ashes. The complainant therefore alleged that he suffered a loss of Rs. 4,50,000/- in the said fire. However, according to complainant he learnt that his claim was sanctioned only for Rs. 2,58,000/- and not for Rs. 3,50,000/- as per value of his insurance policy. It is further alleged that the complainant protested to receive the insufficient compensation for his loss. But he was forced to receive the cheque by the opposite party which he received under protest. The complainant alleged that he was not allowed to write a word "under protest". The complainant further alleged that his insurance policy covers the risk upto Rs. 3,50,000/- for which he was charged the premium amount although he suffered a total loss. He was paid insufficient compensation without any convincing reason. The complainant therefore valued his claim for the balance amount of Rs. 92,000/- with interest and professional damage amounting to Rs. 2,04,600/-. The complainant also alleged that there has been delay in settlement of his claim. The opposite party in its written version admitted the incident of fire and that the complainant was issued the policy in question, for the value of Rs. 3,50,000/-. However, the contention of the opposite party is that the total claim is valued on the averages.

(2.) WE have heard S.S. Tipnis, Advocate for the complainant and Shri Ramdas, Advocate for the opposite party.

(3.) SHRI Tipnis, learned Advocate for the complainant has argued that there is deficiency in the service of the opposite party not only in respect of reduction of the complainants claim to the tune of Rs. 92,000/- but also there has been inordinate delay of nine months to settle the complainants claim. Even the amount of Rs. 2,58,000/- was offered to the complainant after a period of 7 months. According to SHRI Tipnis, it is serious deficiency in the service of the opposite party in as much as the complainant was out of business due to total loss of his shop. We find that the complainant was out of business for a considerable period and thus suffered substantial loss of income.