AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IN this complaint the insured has alleged that his policy claim for the loss caused to his shop due to fire has not been settled properly by the opposite parties. The admitted facts are that the complainant, a shopkeeper at Ambejogai insured his shop for Rs. 10,00,000/- for a period upto 10.4.90. During the subsistence of the insurance policy dated 31.12.89, the complainant''s shop was gutted due to fire on account of the short circuit. The complainant alleged that goods worth Rs. 1,04,626.20 ps. and furniture and fixtures worth Rs. 10,000/- were destroyed during the fire. The complainant alleged that he lodged the claim with the opposite party immediately and Mr. Milind Sangwikar was appointed as Surveyor. The Surveyor submitted his report but the opposite parties did not finalize his claim for a period of 17 months. The complainant alleged that he wrote several letters to the opposite parties and lastly on 21.9.90 served a legal notice claiming early settlement of his claim. According to complainant, his legal notice was not replied and no action was taken on his complaint but unilaterally the opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant by a letter dated 3.10.91 without assigning convincing and satisfactory reasons. The complainant, therefore, presented this complaint dated 10.6.91 and claimed Rs. 1,14,626.20 for the total loss and also claimed business loss amounting to Rs. 2,52,361.20 + Rs. 50,000/- towards mental sufferings. The complainant also claimed Rs. 10,000/- as costs.
THE opposite parties did not file their written version within the stipulated time after the receipt of the notice from this Commission. THE permission to extend the time for filing written version was sought and ultimately after delayed time, the written version was filed on 4.10.91. Inter-alia, the opposite parties admitted the insurance policy but denied the claim of the complainant. THE Opposite Parties even denied the fact of fire and doubted the genuineness and correctness of the complainant''s claim. THE opposite party also doubted the integrity of their Surveyor, Mr. Milind Sangwikar on the ground that he was known to the complainant. According to Opposite Parties, the claim of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. We have heard the complainant through Shri M.K. Siddiqui, Advocate and opposite parties by Shri Upadye, Advocate. We have also carefully perused the Surveyor''s reports and the documents filed in this complaint. We have also gone through the pleadings of both the parties. According to O.Ps., viz., National Insurance Company, there was no fire due to short circuit. However, we find that Mr. Milind Sawangwikar, the Surveyor in his report dated 22.1.90 immediately after the incident had stated in para 7(c) cause of loss "fire due to short circuit". It is also stated in the said report that the instance was identified and fire brigade vehicle had arrived to extinguish the fire. There is the certificate of Municipal Council Ambejogai to that effect. This report dated 21.1.90 has been tried to be nullified by appointing another Surveyor viz., Bhatawadekar and Company. The Survey Report of Bhatawadekar & Company dated 23.9.91 also stated in para 2 and para 3 that the duration of fire was for 40/60 minutes and that it was due to electric short circuit. However, Bhatawadekar & Co. tried to wriggle out the situation to support the Insurance Company stating that short circuit would not have occurred because the tube lights remained to be on condition. We very much doubt the genuineness of Bhatawadekar & Co.''s report which is rendered on 23.9.91 after a period of one year and nine months. We are surprised to know how after such a long period the tube lights were examined by Bhatawadekar & Co. Only on this version and slippery grounds, the claim of the complainant is set at naught. In our view, the opposite party was determined to deny the claim of complainant on flimsy, remote and unstensible grounds. Another contention raised on behalf of Insurance Company was that the complainant manipulated the stock in his shop and inflated his claim. We find from records that complainant has placed on record convincing documents viz., the bills of purchase of the goods, immediately before the goods arrived in the town of Ambejogai and other documents. It is also on record and in affidavit on behalf of complainant of one Issack Patel of Latur, Proprietor of Marathwada Agency stating that on 29.12.89, the complainant purchased the goods worth Rs. 15,468 and Rs. 19,190/- vide two cash memoes. The contents of the affidavit coupled with cash memoes support the complainant''s story that two days prior to the date of occurrence he had purchased the goods and they were in the stock in his shop. In view of this convincing evidence on record, the objection of the Insurance Company that the complainant manipulated the stock to make the bogus claim cannot be accepted.
It is too difficult to digest the allegations of the Insurance Company about the manipulation of the stock. The last contention raised by the Insurance Company is that the report of Mr. Milind Sangwikar, Surveyor should not be accepted and the report of Bhatawadekarand Company should be relied upon. The Opposite Parties alleged that Mr. Milind Sangwika was friendly with complainant, but there is no evidence about the intimacy of complainant and Mr. Milind Sangwikar. There is absolutely no evidence on record to support this allegation. Mr. Sangwikar in his another report dated 28.6.91 denied the allegations made against him. It is important to refer to this report of Milind Sangwikar in which he has stated that the local development officer of the Insurance Company was with him for whole day during the time of survey. In our view, therefore, the doubt created by the Insurance Company as regards the integrity of Milind Sangwikaris to tally false and appears to be got up and after thought to malign the reputation of Milind Sangwikar and with a view to using it as a handle to repudiate the claim of complainant. Mr. Milind Sangwikar has estimated the Joss of complainant at Rs. 53,400/- at page 4 (para 3) (g) in report dated 28.6.91. Even Bhatawadekar & Co. also in their survey report estimated the loss of complainant at Rs. 35,680/-. However, inourview, the report of Bhatawadekar and Co. is belated and got up to counter the report of Milind Sangwikar. We are inclined to accept the report of Milind Sangwikar which was immediately made after the incident and in presence of the Development Officer of the O.P. 1. Under these circumstances, we find that there is not only inordinate delay on the part of the opposite party to settle the claim of complainant but we further find that the National Insurance Company officials have exhibited their callous and negligent attitude to reject the genuine claim of complainant by hook or crook with the assistance of Bhatawadekar & Co. We are, therefore, fully convinced and satisfied with the complainant''s claim as he has proved the allegations and he deserves the grant of his insurance policy claim. Hence, we pass the following order : - ORDER
WE direct the National Insurance Company the Regional Office, Pune to settle the claim of the complainant for Rs. 53,400/-. The amount of Rs. 53,400/- after the settlement of complainant''s claim be paid to the complainant by the opposite party with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 3.10.91 till actual payment. The complainant also be paid Rs. 1000/- as costs. The claim amount and costs be paid to the complainant after settlement of his claim within 30 days from the receipt of this order failing which the complainant can approach this Commission. Complaint allowed with costs.