SANJEEV JAIN Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sanjeev Jain, MD of Hill Height Hotels Private Limited, is the complainant. He runs a hotel, Image Manali Inn, Himachal Pradesh. A fire broke out in the hotel on 14.01.2007 on the 4th floor.The Chief Regional Commissioner of OP-1/National Insurance Company Limited (OP-1 hereafter) was intimated on 15.01. 2007(Ann. C-4). Approximate loss was estimated at Rs.80 lakh. Surveyor deputed by OP-1 conducted survey of the premises on 19.12. 2007. Both police and Fire Services were intimated. On 18.4.2007, complainant wrote to OP-1 in respect of the claim of Rs. 97,19,770/- filed on 20.2.2007 with the surveyor (Ann. C-7). He then filed an application dated 21.4.2007 under the RTI Act with the CMD of OP-1(Ann. C-8). Hereafter, more documents sought by the surveyor were provided. Finally, vide letter dated 2.11.2007(Ann. C-23), OP informed the complainant that it's claim had been approved for Rs.56,06,990/-, enclosing a discharge voucher. This, however, was not acceptable to the complainant. Per the complainant, the amount should have been higher as the insurance was on a Reinstatement value basis, not on Depreciated value basis. Hence, this consumer complaint, seeking the following reliefs: allow the complaint against the OP and direct it to pay the principal amount of Rs. 97,19,770/- , with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the accident till the date of realisation, and compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and torture to the complainant, and litigation cost of Rs. 2,00,000/- with such other relief(s) as deemed fit.

(2.) This complaint was contested by the OP through a written version (WV). Preliminary objections were taken. One, Sanjeev Jain had no locus standi: the company, not he, was insured under the policy. Two, there was no deficiency in service: the claim had been settled expeditiously in the sum of Rs. 56,06,990/- as assessed by surveyors and strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Three, the claim was not settled on reinstatement basis because reinstatement basis was there only up to 1997 98. The survey report dated 24.07.2007 was in possession of the insured and it failed to point out any error in the assessment of Rs.56,06,990/-. It was not now open to the complainant to raise this dispute about the policy basis. The complaint was thus frivolous and vexatious and liable to be dismissed under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

(3.) Rejoinder dt. 4.2.2008 and affidavit by way of evidence was filed by the complainant, along with a copy of the resolution of the Board of Directors of MS Hill Height Hotels Private Limited, authorising him to file this suit. This was to take care of the first preliminary objection that the complainant had no locus standi. Affidavit evidence was filed also on behalf of the OP. Arguments were heard on 12.09.2019.