POWER ADDITIVES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

This appeal has been filed by the complainant, Power Additives (India) Pvt. Ltd. against the impugned order dated 19.01.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, (in short ''the State Commission'').

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had taken a Standard fire and Special Perils Policy of the respondent under insurance policy bearing no.111200/11/04/02434 valid from 28.03.2005 to 27.03.2006 for a total sum of Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Three Thousand only. Under the policy, the appellant was insured with the respondent with respect to its office premises on the ground floor and the furniture, fixtures, fittings and air conditioners fitted therein. Appellant suffered losses due to the torrential rains of 26.07.2005, which resulted into heavy floods all over Mumbai. Due to floods, water entered into appellant company''s office premises on the ground, which resulted in extensive damage to the furniture, fittings, office partition (wooden), air conditioners, computers and other office tools and equipments. As soon as the floods subsided on 29.07.2005, i.e. three days after the floods, while opening the office, the

officers of the appellant found all the furniture and fixtures in dilapidated condition blocking the main door from inside. The appellant informed the officer of respondent and took photographs of the damage caused. The appellant informed of the huge financial losses vide letter dated 5.09.2005 to the respondent.

Respondent appointed a surveyor who sought certain documents. Appellant immediately submitted all the documents to the aforesaid Mr. Nutan Prasad vide its letter dated 25.09.2005. Appellant had also provided the respondent with the value of the estimated loss incurred by the appellant due to the floods. After perusing the estimated losses, the respondent allowed the costs of only three items viz. office partition (wooden), Executive Chairs and Glasses. Respondent demanded for a registered Architect''s Certificate along with the design of interior layout certifying the cost of replacement as on September, 2005. The appellant vide its letter dated 06.01.2006 and 23.01.2006 submitted the Architect''s Certificate along with the design of interior layout certifying the cost of replacement as on September 2005 and valuation certificate of M/s. Sthapatya Architects in respect of the same.

Appellant requested for release of interim payment but to no avail. Appellant submitted all the necessary documents and details as per the requirements and demands of the respondent vide its letter dated 29.7.2006 and letter dated 28.10.2006. The respondent sent a voucher dated 05.03.2007 to the appellant offering a paltry sum of Rs.47,279/- (Rupees Forty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Nine only) as full and final payment of the entire claim. The appellant raised his dispute owing to the amount of calculation vide letter dated 12.04.2007, on which the respondent revised the claim amount to the tune of Rs.86,765/-. Not satisfied with this, a complaint was filed before the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Mumbai being Complaint Case No.102 of 2008 (RBT/CC/13/131). The respondent contested the same. Judgment dated 28.04.2011 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay an amount of RS.8,57,000/- with interest @9% p.a. from 29.07.2007 till actual payment. The respondent filed First Appeal No.229 of 2012 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The matter was remanded back to the State Commission vide order dated 20.03.2013.

The State Commission passed impugned order/judgment dated 19.01.2015 revising the earlier awarded compensation of Rs.8,57,000/- to Rs.3,57,000/-.

Hence this appeal.

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the documents.

Learned counsel for the appellant stated that by order dated 28.04.2011 the State Commission has earlier ordered for allowing payment of insurance claim of Rs.8,57,000/-. Pursuant to order passed by the National Commission in First Appeal No.229 of 2012 filed by the opposite party/respondent the matter was remanded back to the State Commission vide order dated 20.3.2013 of the National Commission. The State Commission has now allowed insurance claim of Rs.3,57,000/- only without any reason or justification for reducing the claim. All the bills and vouchers on record have not been considered by the State Commission. The only bill of polishing the furniture has been allowed. It cannot be denied that the complainant must have spent money on other items like repairs/replacement of air-conditioners and wall etc. The report of the surveyor is totally unbelievable. The policy was ''Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy'' valid from 28.03.2005 to 27.03.2006 for a total sum of Rs.25,03,000/- and therefore, the claim was well within the limit of the policy.

Learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent stated that most of the bills are in the nature of estimates only and there is only one receipt for Rs.3,57,000/- for polishing of furniture, which has been allowed by the State Commission. No other receipts have been filed, which show the actual expenditure by the complainant. Order of the State Commission is based on the actual receipts filed by the complainant, which reflects the actual expenditure by the complainant. Based on the surveyor report, the Insurance Company offered Rs.47,279/- as claim under the policy. But the complainant sent a representation to the Insurance Company and Insurance Company got reassessment of the loss and agreed for the claim amount of Rs.86,765/-. The report of the surveyor is a very important document for consideration of the claim. The State Commission has already given much more than loss assessed by the surveyor. The Insurance Company has not filed any revision petition due to small amount involved, though, it feels that only the amount assessed by the surveyor should have been allowed.

I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the parties. The State Commission in its judgment has observed as under:-

"The matter was heard afresh, on perusal of documents, we find that except the affidavit of Surveyor Mr. Nutan Prasad and affidavit of Regional Manager of opponent/Insurance Company in support of three Survey Reports, there is nothing new document ever brought on record by the opponent/Insurance Company. There is no other document submitted by the opponent/Insurance Company. It was contended by learned counsel of the opponent that there is no independent evidence to establish the damage sustained on account of calamity. However, such a damage was estimated by themselves to Rs.9,36,000/-. As against that an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs was tendered as advance to carry out the damage repair work of interior. The complainant undertook the exercise to polish the damaged furniture and incurred expenditure of Rs.3,57,000/-as per receipt available on record. Beyond this, there is no other document though other estimations/quotations are available on record, but there is no documentary evidence to show that said amount was actually spent and receipts were obtained to carry out such repair works. Final Survey Report i.e. Third Survey Report estimated the loss to the tune of Rs.86,804/- and one of the item of loss was included as polishing of the damaged furniture to restore to its original position. However, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel of the opponent/Insurance Company that the complainant failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the policy pertaining to reinstatement of the insured property by following the due procedure laid down therein. At the same time, Surveyor has recommended an amount of Rs.86,804/-. There is supporting document which was taken into consideration earlier while deciding consumer complaint on 28.04.2011establishing the expenditure of Rs.3,57,000/- though while deciding consumer complaint previously on 28/04/2011 this Commission appears to have taken into consideration the estimates also. We are inclined to consider the claim to the extent of actual expenditure supported by receipt of payment which is Rs.3,57,000/-. Since this amount was due and payable to the complainant which has not been settled by the opponent/Insurance Company incurs deficiency of service to the complainant. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-

1.Complaint is partly allowed.

Opponent/Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.3,57,000/- with interest @ 9% pa. from the date of filing of consumer complaint i.e. 04/06/2008 within a period of sixty days, failing which rate of interest shall be 12% pa. payable on the amount ordered to be paid till realization."

I have also carefully gone through the record and have found that except for the receipt of Rs.3,57,000/- for polishing the furniture, other bills/vouchers submitted by the complainant are in the nature of estimates only. Therefore, I find that there is no illegality or material irregularity in the order of the State Commission and the order of the State Commission is based on correct appreciation of the evidence available on record. Accordingly, I find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed herewith.

No order as to costs for this appeal.