SURYA LAKSHMI Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Sec. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") against the Opposite Parties seeking to direct the OPs:-

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainants, are that Complainant had obtained four insurance policies from the Opposite Parties (OPs) to cover various assets of its industrial establishment. The first policy No. 050405/11/06/11/00000452, provided coverage for the Building, Plant and Machinery, and Electrical Installations for a total sum insured of Rs.260,00,00,000,.00 valid from 28/3/2007 to 27/3/2008. The second policy, No. 050405/11/06/11/00000435, covered Stock in Process for Rs.13,50,00,000,.00 valid from 8/3/2007 to 7/3/2008. The third policy, No. 050405/11/07/12/00000061, covered Stocks of Finished Goods to the extent of Rs.30,00,00,000,.00 valid from 1/5/2007 to 30/4/2008. The fourth policy, No. 050405/11/07/11/00000293, covered stock of Denim Fabric and Finished Goods worth Rs.5,00,00,000.00 and was valid from 3/10/2007 to 2/3/2008; however, no claim was preferred under this policy.

(3.) While all these policies were in force, a major fire broke out at the insured premises on 27/1/2008 at about 06:00 AM, resulting in extensive damage to the insured property including the building, plant and machinery, electrical installations, stock in process, and finished goods. The complainant initially lodged a total claim of Rs.38,70,32,797..00 Since the policies carried a reinstatement value clause and the complainant opted for reinstatement, an interim payment of Rs.8,00,00,000.00 was recommended. Thereafter, on 3/1/2009, the complainant submitted a revised claim of Rs.31,07,08,218.66, providing a detailed breakdown of the loss incurred under the respective policy heads. The OPs appointed M/s. N. Velayudham& Company as surveyors to assess the loss, who submitted their final report on 11/5/2009. However, despite repeated requests, the report was not furnished to the complainant until the fourth week of September 2009. In the meantime, the OPs called upon the complainant to sign a discharge voucher for full and final settlement of the claim, without disclosing the particulars or basis of the assessment. Under financial duress and unaware of the printed endorsement "full and final" in the voucher, the complainant signed and returned the same. On 25/8/2009, the complainant received a cheque bearing No. 761037 for Rs.17,17,78,185.00 from the OPs. The very next day, the complainant protested and informed the OPs that a balance amount of approximately Rs.23.14 Cr. was still due, and that no details or calculations had been shared to justify the payment made. Despite further communications requesting the surveyor's report and a joint discussion to clarify the assessment, no meeting was arranged. When the report was finally received, the complainant found numerous discrepancies, arbitrary exclusions, and excessive deductions, including those relating to depreciation, excise duty, VAT, and costs associated with reinstatement and loan interest. It is the case of the complainant that the claim was settled unilaterally and in an unfair manner, amounting to deficiency in service on the part of both the OPs and the appointed surveyor. Thus, complainant filed the present complaint.