MJRJ MEDICHEM SURGICALS Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(for short, 'Act'), against order dated 4.2.2013 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench Jodhpur, Rajasthan (for short, 'State Commission') in F.A. No.80 of 2012.

(2.) Brief facts of this case are that Petitioner/Complainant had insured goods of his shop for a sum of Rs.16 lacs for the period 4.9.2008 to 3.9.2009. On 10.7.2009, at about 12.30 p.m. petitioner's shop got fire by short circuit with the result stocks and furniture were brunt. Petitioner in this process suffered loss of Rs.12,33,436/-. Information in this regard was given to the Respondents/Opposite Parties. Shri Sanjay Bhandari was appointed as surveyor by the respondent, who after physical verification assessed the loss of Rs.2,22,659/-. However, respondent's officer asked the petitioner to accept the sum of Rs.1,55,213/- only being the interim payment and assured him that the balance amount would be paid later on. On their assurance, petitioner accepted the cheque of Rs.1,55,213/- only on 11.1.2010. Due to the non payment of the genuine claim, petitioner sent a legal notice dated 16.8.2010 but getting no response from the respondents, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint.

(3.) Respondents in their written statement have stated that on receipt of the information from the petitioner, surveyor was sent to assess the loss, who after completing his investigation has assessed the loss on the basis of damage on the spot and the documents submitted by the petitioner. A list of loss worth of Rs.2,22,659/- was given to the respondent by the petitioner. After physical verification, the total loss of Rs.1,,55,213/- was assessed and the same was intimated to Shri Rakesh Jain, the complainant. The complainant expressed his satisfaction and as such a cheque for a sum of Rs.1,55,213/- was handedover to Shri Rakesh Jain, who accepted the same. Since, petitioner had received the amount on its own, he is not entitled to receive any further amount. It is further stated that no official of respondent company ever stated that the amount being received by the petitioner was interim.