LAWS(NCD)-2017-7-118

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. 12/1, ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI Vs. M/S. CLASSIC GLASS & PLYWOOD CENTRE AND ANOTHER

Decided On July 17, 2017
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 12/1, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi Appellant
V/S
M/S. Classic Glass And Plywood Centre And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts are that the complainant, M/s Classic Glass & Plywood Center was in the business of glass and plywood of various kinds took a policy for a period of 18-11-2002 to 17-11-2003 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the opposite party-New India Assurance Company. During subsistence of the policy, on 20-11-2002 in the morning the fire took place in the shop. It was informed to the fire brigade and police station also. It took almost three hours to extinguish the fire, entire plywood stock of the complainant was burnt to ashes. The showroom was situated on the ground floor of the building whereas the sheets of plywood were stored in the first floor. The incident of fire was intimated to OP, who deputed a surveyor, but the claim was not settled. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before the Varanasi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, the District Forum) for alleged deficiency in service from the OP.

(2.) The opposite party resisted the complaint by filing the written version. The opposite party, on receipt of intimation of the fire incident deputed the surveyor to assess the extent of fire loss. The surveyor assessed the extent of loss to Rs.1,17,072/- and opined that, the said loss was not admissible because there was no loss in the shop as the policy coverage was only for the shop, but the fire was occurred in the godown located on the first floor.

(3.) The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint and also awarded Rs.4,000/- as cost. Being aggrieved, the opposite party-insurance company filed the first appeal before the State Commission, it was dismissed vide order dated 18-03-2016. Hence, this revision petition.