PRADEEP STORES vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

THE case of the complainant in brief is that he owns a proprietorship firm having its place of business at New Market, Dibrugarh and has been dealing in cloth business. He got his shop duly insured with the opposite party for any accident including fire, and the total loss covered by the insurance was for Rs. 2,85,000/- for which he paid the requisite premium. That on the night of 27-1-91 a devastating fire broke out at a New Market, Dibrugarh, and the shop of the complainant was totally gutted in mat fire. THE complainant immediately reported to the officer-in-charge Dibrugarh Police Station, and the officer-incharge, fire service and the Branch Manager of the opposite party. THE Opposite Party deputed its Surveyor to assess the loss and the Surveyor after due enquiry submitted its report. THE Complainant made a total claim as the entire shop was gutted in the fire along with the entire stock.

THAT after repeated reminders and demands the opposite party sent a voucher along with a letter to sign the said voucher in full and final settlement of the claim of the complainant and the claim was shown to have been settled at Rs. 1,79,435/-. THAT as the claim was on the lower side and the opposite party did not fix the claim at the maximum as per policy, the complainant returned the said voucher along with a letter dated 26-12-91 requesting for reconsidering the claim of the complainant. THAT subsequently the complainant by his letters dated 4-6-92 and 24-6-92 to the opposite party gave the details of his loss and the accounts. Thereafter the complainant received another letter dated 31-7-92 along with a voucher whereby the opposite party fixed the compensation at Rs. 2,03,354/- and asking the complainant to return the voucher duly discharged by him for early payment. But as the opposite party did not settle the claim at Rs. 2,74,000/- as claimed by the complainant, the complainant returned the said voucher along with his letter dated 10-8-92. In the said letter the complainant requested the opposite party to make part payment in respect of their claim, or to pay the aforesaid amount as fixed by them under protest. The opposite party however, by letter dated 28-8-92 informed the complainant of their inability to acede to the request. Being aggrieved, the complainant has filed this petition claiming compensation of Rs. 2,74,000/-for the loss sustained by him along with interest at 24% per annum from the date of the accident till date of recovery. The opposite party has filed their written objection wherein the fact of the fire and substantial damage sustained by the complainant due to the said fire was admitted. It was also stated that the opposite party engaged a registered Surveyor, assessor and valuer who visited the place of occurrence for the purpose of making enquiry, survey and assess the loss. The survey report was submitted on 18.4.91 who recomnended for settlement at an amount of Rs. 1,79,435/-. As the complainant was reluctant to receive the said amount, the opposite party after careful scrutiny of the available materials arrived at an amount of Rs. 2,03,445/- as full and final settlement of the claim. However, this amount was also not accepted by the complainant. The opposite party denied that only after repeated reminder and demands of the complainant the claim amount of Rs. 1,79,435/- was offered to the complainant. The case of the opposite party was that the amount was offered as per report submitted by the Surveyor, and after careful scrutiny of the materials on record.

No oral evidence has been adduced in this case by either party. We have heard the learned Counsels of both the parties, and examined the documents on record.

THE complainant has asked for payment of his entire loss totalling an amount of Rs. 2,74,000/-. THE following sequence of events needs to be examined whether he is entitled for the same. It is admitted that the insurance period was from 5-9-90 to 4-9-91 and the fire broke out on 27-1-91. It is not denied that the complainant by his letter dated 28-1-91 informed the opposite party of the fire incident. It appears from the survey report dated 18-4-91 that the Surveyor first visited the affected premises and met the insured on 30-1-91 and after scrutinising the debrise etc. asked the insured to submit whatever records he had for verification and assessment. THE insured along with the claim form submitted a list of clothes drawn from memory amounting to Rs. 2,49,232/- towards the value of stock present in the shop at the time of fire, and further submitted some certified copies of balance sheet, certified copies of final statements of accounts, duplicate purchase vouchers/bills and cash book and ledger stated to be kept in the residence. THE Surveyor submitted his report which is dated 18-4-91. THE opposite party by letter dated 17-12-91 asked the complainant to take the claim amounting to Rs. 1,79,435/-which was declined by the complainant as seen from his letter dated 26-12-91. A question arises as to why the offer of payment was delayed as late as 17-12-91 when the surveyor report was ready on 18-4-91. We are satisfied with the explanation of this delay which has been narrated in paragraph 10 of the written objection. It appears that the complainant being dis-satisfied with the above mentioned amount sent in more information and details of loss, and the opposite party after consideration of the same offered an amount of Rs. 2,03,454/- on 31-7-92 which was also declined by the complainant by his letter dated 10-8-92. THE complainant finally filed the present complaint on 31-10-92 praying for compensation of Rs. 2,74,000/-for the loss sustained by him along with interest at 24% per annum from the date of fire till the date of recovery. However this Commission on the prayer made by the complainant passed an order on 19-12-92 directing payment of the agreed amount by the Insurance Company without prejudice to the claim of the petitioner. The only question to be determined now is whether the complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 2,74,000/- which is claimed by him as his total loss. We have carefully examined the Surveyor report and find that the Surveyor has dealt with the matter in details. The survey findings have been arrived that after examining the site, the relevant information and documents of business transaction etc. furnished by the complainant. The assessment appears to be reasonable, and the shortfall, if any, had been met by the opposite party with their second offer of Rs. 2,03,454/-. We have already held that there was no unreasonable delay on the part of the opposite party in making the first offer. We also find that no un-reasonable delay on the part of the opposite party in making the second offer after re-consideration of the materials furnished in the meantime. The complainant cannot claim benefit of delay after 31-7-92. We find that no lapse or negligent act on the part of the opposite party in dealing with the matter. The opposite party has given due reconsideration on the quantum of compensation to be offered to the complainant over and above the amount of assessment arrived at by the Surveyor. The Insurance Company is bound to pay to the insured the value at the time of happening of such loss of the property so lost. We are of the opinion that the amount of Rs. 2,03,454/- is reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case as the same has been arrived at after due deliberation. We are not inclined to allow any interest. If the payment of the amount of Rs. 2,03,454/- has not been already made to the complainant, we direct the opposite party to make payment of the said amount of Rs. 2,03,454/- to the complainant within 2 (two) months from today, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The complaint is accordingly disposed of. We make no order as to cost. Complaint dismissed without costs. ________________