ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant (respondent no.1 in this appeal) had insured his house at village Kiari for Rs.30 lakh and the household effects for Rs.5 lakh with the appellant insurance company under a standard fire policy for the period 02.11.2005 01.11.2006. The house was damaged by fire in the night of 11-12 November 2005. The insured filed his claim for indemnification of loss to the extent of the sums insured. The insurance company (appellant in this appeal) appointed a surveyor (respondent no.2) to assess the loss. Based on the surveyors assessment, the appellant offered payment of Rs.12, 18,012/-which did not satisfy the complainant. Therefore, he filed a complaint before the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, the State Commission) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant insurance company in not settling his insurance claim in full. During the pendency of the complaint, the insurance company paid the admitted sum to the complainant. On consideration of the matter, the State Commission held the insurance company guilty of deficiency in service and directed it to pay to the complainant Rs.22.50 lakh towards damage to the house as well as household effects, with interest @ 9% per annum from 13.03.2006 (i. e. , after allowing four months to the insurance company to settle the claim) till payment, Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.25,000/- towards costs. Aggrieved, the insurance company has filed this appeal.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Kishore Rawat, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms Pragati Neekhra, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no.1 and considered the documents and material. Respondent no.2 wrote to this Commission seeking leave not to appear on the grounds that he had nothing to add to his survey report which was already on record and was, in any case, only a pro forma respondent as no relief had been sought from him. His prayer was granted as neither party pressed for his presence.

(3.) Mr. Rawat has assailed the findings and order of the State Commission mainly on the grounds that the State Commission was not justified in rejecting the assessment of the licensed and qualified surveyor just because he was an electrical-mechanical engineer (as against a civil engineer) and substituting, without any basis, its own guestimate to award the sum of Rs.22.50 lakh in lieu of Rs.12, 18,012/- assessed by the surveyor. Ms Neekhra has, on the other hand, supported the finding and order of the State Commission, highlighting that the insurance company had, without demur, insured the complainants house and household effects at Rs.30 lakh and Rs.5 lakh respectively only about a short while before the incident of fire and could not, therefore, be allowed to argue that the loss due to burning of the house and household effects could be as low as a little over Rs.12 lakh.