NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. P. J. THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 10.11.2008, passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in Consumer Complaint No. OP/24/2000, filed by the present respondent P.J. Thomas, vide which, the said complaint was allowed and the appellant/OP Insurance Company was directed to pay a sum of 4,76,000/- to the complainant with interest @18% p.a. from 23.08.1999, for damage to the stocks during a fire incident.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent P.J. Thomas started a wood industry in February 1998 in the name and style of Ponnamattathil Wood Industries, Thamarassery, Calicut, after taking financial assistance from the Kerala Finance Corporation Limited. The complainant obtained a fire policy, 'C-98/3100628' from the appellant insurance company, covering period from 09.12.98 to 08.12.99 for an assured sum of 11.5 lakh, consisting of 3 lakh for the building, 3.5 lakh for plant and machinery and 5 lakh for the stocks. It is stated that on 29.03.99, fire occurred in the factory around 1:00 AM. The fire department and the police were intimated and they reached the spot, but there was huge damage to the building, machinery and stock in trade. The complainant evaluated the loss to the machinery at 1.68 lakh, cable work at 55,000/-, loss to the building at 1.85 lakh and loss of stock at 4.76 lakh. In this way, the total loss assessed by the complainant was 8.83 lakh. On intimation, the appellant insurance company appointed a surveyor Sh. Lohidakshan Nair, who visited the spot on 30.03.99 with a team of three persons. Further, on 10.04.99, another joint surveyor Sh. Sanker came to the site and inspected the documents. It has been alleged in the consumer complaint that despite these inspections/visits, the claim was not paid and finally, in August 1999, the surveyor asked the complainant to submit an agreement on stamp-paper, saying that the loss/damage was limited to building and machinery alone and the complainant was withdrawing his claim for loss to stocks. It is the case of the complainant that they were forced by the said surveyor to sign the agreement on 23.08.99, withdrawing their claim for the loss of stocks. Since they were in dire need of money and wanted to discharge their mounting liabilities, they were forced to sign the same.

(3.) The complainant stated in his complaint that the said document, got executed from them by the said surveyor, was not legally valid or binding. However, the insurance company made them payment of Rs.2,38,000/-, following which they sent a legal notice to them, raising their objections and saying that the amount had been received under protest. The consumer complaint was then filed, seeking directions to the insurance company to pay a sum of 7,81,056/-, which was the amount calculated based on their original demand of 8,83,000/- after deduction of the amount of 2,38,000/- paid by the insurance company and after adding further interest till date. The complainant also requested that a sum of 2,50,000/- should also be given to them as compensation for deficiency in service etc. on the part of the OPs.