GAURAV OVERSEAS INC. THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MR. PRADEEP CHHUGANI, 3, SP 3 SECTOR, JAWAHAR NAGAR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER, EGIONAL OFFICE, AT NEHRU PLACE, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise out of single order of State Commission; hence, decided by single order.

(2.) F.A. No. 607 of 2013, Gaurav Overseas Inc. Vs. United India Ins. Co. Ltd. has been filed by the complainant and F.A. No. 815 of 2013, United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Gaurav Overseas Inc. has been filed by OP against order dated 11.07.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (in short "the State Commission) in Complaint No. 26 of 2007, Gaurav Overseas Inc. Vs. United India Ins. Co. Ltd. by which, complaint was partly allowed and OP was directed to pay Rs.7,53,809.00 along with compensation of Rs. 50,000.00.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant dealing in garments exports obtained insurance policy for its goods, stock, plant & machinery from OP. During currency of policy, on 13.3.2004 at about 1.00 a.m. fire broke out in the insured plant on account of which, complainants sustained loss of about Rs. 85 to 90 lakhs as goods, material and plant & machinery were completely destroyed. Intimation was given to OP immediately. Two surveyors were appointed by OP who required documents which were supplied to them. OP settled claim for Rs.31,17,623.00 whereas complainant suffered loss of Rs. 85 to 90 lakhs. Complainant accepted aforesaid amount under protest and claimed rest of the amount. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before learned State Commission. OP resisted complaint, admitted insurance policy and incident of fire, but submitted that surveyor and investigator conducted the survey fairly and impartially and on the basis of the survey report, an amount of Rs. 31,17,623.00 was paid to the complainant on 7.6.2005 against "full and final settlement " of his claim. The complainant accepted the aforesaid amount voluntarily with his sweet will and without any compulsion. The complainant is not a consumer as he was engaged in commercial transaction. The present matter cannot be decided summarily by the Commission as it requires detailed inquiry/trial and so the present complaint is not maintainable before the Commission and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint partly and directed OP to pay amount as mentioned above against which, these appeals have been filed. OP along with appeal has also filed application for condonation of delay in filing appeal.