RISHI KEDIA Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 10th August 2015 of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur ('the State Commission') in FA no. 15 / 359.

(2.) The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner was a wholesaler of Rexene Cotton Fabric and furnishing Cloth. The petitioner had got the insurance done for the stock related to his business from the respondent/ opposite parties. The petitioner insured the stock for Rs.30 lakh and the furniture for Rs.1.00 lakh for the period from 13.02.2011 to 12.02.2012. The shop/ godown of the petitioner caught fire suddenly between 02.00 to 02.30 am on the intervening night of 28/ 29.01.2012, which caused huge damage to the petitioner. To register the First Information Report of the accident, the petitioner requested the SHO, Saraswati Nagar, Raipur to register an FIR. After the investigation, on 01.03.2012 a report was submitted by the SHO, Saraswati Nagar to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, District - Raipur on the fire report of the petitioner registering under Fire number 01/12 in which a report from the electricity Department was also attached which stated that the reasons for fire was due to short circuit in the go-down. On 20.03.2012 the surveyor assessed the damage. After the survey a report was submitted in which the damage caused due to the fire was assessed at Rs.25,85,640/-. Rs.25,59,955/- was provided to the petitioner by the respondents on 15.05.2012, in relation to the damage caused due to the above-mentioned fire. Assessment of the accounting and audit was got done by a chartered accountant Shri A D Aggrawal and thereafter a claim bill of Rs.38,41,125/- had been submitted to the respondents. The accounting and audit reports submitted by the chartered account of the petitioner had also been accepted by the auditor of respondent no. 2. The above act of the respondents in not paying the full claim fall under the category of deficiency in service. The respondent did not make the remaining payment of the claim amount. Thereafter the petitioner through his advocate sent a legal notice to the respondents requesting for the remaining amount of the claim of Rs.5,40,045/-. The respondent did not make the payment of the remaining claim amount and neither did they reply in writing. Hence, the petitioner had filed a complaint and prayed for the following reliefs:

(3.) The respondent no. 2 in their reply has submitted that the petitioner had accepted Rs.25,60,210/- with complete and final satisfaction. Shri A D Aggarwal, chartered accountant did not have any right to do the assessment in relation to the above damage. Shri A D Aggarwal's appointment had been done by the petitioner for evaluation of the damage caused and he has shown exaggerated figures so that the petitioner could be given an unfair advantage. The respondent had appointed Mr K K Shrivastav as surveyor who was authorised by IRDA as an independent surveyor. Thus the survey report submitted by the above surveyor was recognized. The petitioner had accepted Rs.25,60,201/- in complete and full satisfaction. Hence, the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with a compensation of Rs.20,000/-.