BIKRAMADITYA PAUL Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed by the complainant of C. D. Case No. 97 of 2002 being aggrieved against the orders dated 30. 10. 2003 of the District Forum, Puri in that case ordering the sole opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 1,11,277 towards loss of property covered under the policy of insurance, with interest @ 12% per annum till payment from the month of August, 2000 (8/2000) delay being caused in settlement of claim and to pay litigation cost of Rs. 500 to the complainant/appellant.

(2.) FACTS in nutshell are that undisputedly complainant insured his shop viz. M/s. Vimala Handloom and Applique with opposite party vide policy No. 104 for the period from 7. 6. 1999 to 6. 6. 2000 for a sum of Rs. 6,05,000 annual premium being fixed at Rs. 1500. After daily transaction and after said shop was closed at 10. 40 p. m. on 30. 1. 2000, in absence of the complainant, the shop was caught with accidental fire and the handloom and Applique goods, furniture, fixtures and electrical fittings to the tune of Rs. 3,09,277 were burnt and damaged. Some articles were also partly burnt but became completely useless. Fire Brigade had arrived to extinguish the fire. Complainant had intimated the Insurance Company-the opposite party. Complainant lodged claim of Rs. 3,09,277 with the opposite party. Matter was intimated to police. The opposite party first of all deputed surveyor - Sri Banerjee who made preliminary survey and assessed loss only in respect to partly damaged articles by water and fire leaving rest part of survey to be performed by final surveyor. The preliminary surveyor's report in respect to closing stock as on 30. 1. 2000 was worth Rs. 2,35,679. 39 and less stock partially affected items as Rs. 43,920. The opposite party subsequently deputed second surveyor Sri K. C. Mohapatra. He submitted his report dated 27. 12. 2000 referring also to the aforesaid preliminary report of the first surveyor that the stock of fully burnt items is Rs. 1,91,759. 39 plus loss in partially burnt items. The total loss according to him is thus Rs. 2,35,679. 39. The total gross loss calculated by him and submitted vide said report is Rs. 2,35,679. 39 minus 10% of this amount = Rs. 2,12,111. 45. After deducting less salvage amount Rs. 28,548 from the aforesaid gross loss in stock viz. Rs. 2,12,111. 45 second surveyor vide his said report dated 27. 12. 2000 assessed loss at Rs. 1,83,563. 45 which is the net liability of the opposite party-Insurance Company. But, being asked to clarify further by the opposite party, his aforesaid assessment about loss, Surveyor-Sri K. C. Mohapatra vide his later report dated 25. 9. 2001 indicated less sales at cost from 1. 1. 2000 to 30. 1. 2001 as Rs. 33,534. 23 and less profit 17. 31% as per I. T. return Rs. 7,019. 92 in total, Rs. 33,534. 23, as against the amount figured in his earlier report in these respects Rs. 30,415. 61 and Rs. 10,138. 54 in total Rs. 30,415. 61 respectively. According to his report of clarification dated 25. 9. 2001, therefore, the value at risk on the date of loss is Rs. 2,32,560. 77 as against the value of risk on the date of loss Rs. 2,35,679. 39 as per his report dated 27. 12. 2000. Accordingly, vide his report dated 25. 9. 2001, Sri K. C. Mohapatra assessed net loss at Rs. 1,11,277. But as per letter dated 19. 2. 2002, the opposite party settled complainant's claim at Rs. 1,08,000. Opposite party enclosed with said letter, a set of discharge vouchers asking to be jointly signed by the complainant and his banker for making payment. But the complainant did not sign the discharge vouchers and claimed Rs. 3,09,277 towards loss and damage as the entire shop with articles have been burnt away and the opposite party did not take into account the partly burnt articles which are totally useless and valueless in spite of his repeated requests. According to the complainant, opposite party did not supply him copies of surveyor's report for his examination and arbitrarily has settled the loss at Rs. 1,08,000. He claims that as no appropriate claim amount has been released in his favour, he is not in a position to revive his business. Besides this, his financing agency, the State Bank of India, in short the S. B. I. , is threatening to recover loan amount taking recourse to litigation. Thus, complainant filed the C. D. case claiming aforesaid loss of Rs. 3,09,277 and for further damage of business Rs. 50,000 and interest @ 20% per annum in total Rs. 3,59,277.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel from both sides and perused the materials on record.