NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. M/S. UNI PLY INDUSTRIES VILLAGE JORIAN YAMUNA NAGAR THROUGH SH.RAJIV GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Insurance Co. which was OP before the District Forum has filed this revision petition against the concurrent finding of both the Fora below holding the petitioner company liable for deficiency in service in terms of the impugned order passed on 10.10.2012 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula in FA No.441/2008. By its order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner Co. and upheld the order dated 3.1.2008 passed by the District Forum, Yamuna Nagar in consumer complaint No.1115 of 2007. The District Forum had allowed the complaint of the respondent / complainant by granting the following reliefs: -

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the respondent/complainant had insured stock of its factory for a sum of Rs.30 lakhs vide cover note valid from 10.4.2005 to 9.4.2006 issued by the petitioner Co. The insurance cover was renewed for next year also by the respondents and was valid upto 9.4.2007. According to the respondent/complainant, the petitioner Insurance Co. issued one page cover note only of the said policy and never issued the terms and conditions with this policy to the complainant. On the intervening night of 5 -6th April 2006, a fire broke out in factory premises resulting into huge loss of stock. The complainant lodged the DDR on 6.4.2006 with the local police followed by intimation to the petitioner Co. which deputed spot surveyor who verified the fact of fire along with Branch Manager of the petitioner Co. The petitioner Co. appointed another surveyor for assessing the loss. The complainant lodged a claim with the petitioner Co. for Rs.19,46,800/ - along with necessary documents for settling the claim. The petitioner Co. informed the complainant about the settlement of the claim at Rs.8,60,208/ - for which a cheque dated 1.12.2006 was issued by the petitioner Co. to the complainant after making certain deductions from the sum of Rs.10,86,592/ - which had been assessed as loss by the surveyor. The respondent / complainant received the said amount and signed the discharge voucher indicating it to be only a partial settlement and thereafter the respondent continued to represent against the deduction made from the sum of Rs.10,86,592/ -. Since the differential amount which had been deducted from the figure of loss assessed by the surveyor was not allowed by the petitioner Co., the respondent / complainant filed a consumer complaint alleging it a case of deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner Co. On being noticed, the petitioner Co. contested the complaint and raised the plea that it had already settled the case of the complainant within a reasonable time and paid a sum of Rs.8,60,208/ - as full and final settlement and nothing remained due to the complainant by the OP Co. It was further submitted by the OP Co. that the claim was settled as per the report of an IRDA approved independent surveyor and loss assessor who had arrived at a net loss figure of Rs.8,60,208/ subject to terms and conditions as well as limitations and exceptions provided in the insurance policy. Since certain amount was deducted as per excess clause and the net amount had been disbursed as per full and final settlement, the OP Co. denied any kind of deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

(3.) WE have heard arguments of learned counsel Sh. Mohan Babu Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner had appointed IRDA approved surveyor and loss assessor to give his preliminary surveyor report and it had also appointed another surveyor to certify and assess the final loss in the premises of the insured. He submitted that based on the surveyor 's report which assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.8,60,208/ - after making necessary deductions on account of excess clause, the amount was immediately disbursed to the complainant and the complainant accepted it. He contended that the surveyor is the best person to assess and ascertaining the loss and its recommendations should have been accepted as provided in the Insurance Act. Another contention raised by learned counsel was that the payment made by the insurance co. was by way of full and final settlement of the claim lodged by the complainant and since he accepted the amount sent by cheque and signed the discharge voucher, the complainant is not entitled for any further relief. In view of this, learned counsel submitted that the Fora below erred in ignoring these aspects while awarding further compensation over and above that recommended by the surveyor and already accepted by the complainant towards full and final settlement of its claim. In the circumstances learned counsel prayed for setting aside of the impugned order and acceptance of the revision petition.