AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sh. Trinath Khera, the Proprietor of complainant''s concern, known as "St. Divyal", has got various premises, properties, situated all over Delhi. The said concern is getting insurance from United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the OP, for the last 20 years'', in respect of premises. On 01.04.2000, the said concern started business at the newly rented premises, M-6, G.K.-I, New Delhi, as a retail outlet of garments. The shop measuring an area of approx.. 3000 sq.ft was meant to be a store to cater to all and every need of the customers in the line of wear and wearing accessories. The Ground Floor measuring 1000 sq.ft was franchised out to a company called M/s. Color Plus Fashion P. Ltd., at a monthly Franchise fee of Rs.2,00,000/- per month. The First Floor premises of 2000 sq.ft. was meant to ''in-house'' the premium product of the complainant. The process of renovation lasted till the end of August, 2000. However, the customers kept on coming to him for purchase of garments and other wearing accessories even
though the showroom was undergoing renovation. The Merchandise was lying scattered on the semi-packed floor and semi-unpacked in the cartons and the showroom was yet to be inaugurated.
During the subsistence of the insurance policy, in the intervening night of 7-8 September, 2000, at about 11.30PM, there occurred a severe fire in the said premises and everything lying therein was reduced to ashes. FIR was lodged on 08.09.2000. Video film and more than 100 photographs of the premises were taken. The police came to the conclusion, vide report dated 17.09.2000 that the cause of fire was due to electric short-circuit, vide its report, its copy has been, marked as Annexure P-1.
The complainant made purchases from a Fashion Designer Firm M/s. Pooja Spa, worth Rs.4,08,895/- on consignment basis as per mutual agreement dated 07.07.2000 and also goods worth Rs.38,79,825.50ps from M/s. Niedhie (I) on deferred payment arrangement. M/s. Niedhie (I) is a partnership firm of M/s. Renu Nath Khera and Sh. Trinath Khera, HUF. Copies of the above said documents were annexed with the complaint jointly marked as Annexure P-2.
Sh.R.K. Puri, Partner of M/s.Digambar Lal Puri Sons, conducted survey on 15.09.2000. The complainant sent as many as 18 documents detailed in the complaint. The complainant also supplied 5 more documents on 21.09.2000 to the Surveyor, vide AnnexureP-3. The complainant requested the insurance company to release an ad-hoc payment of Rs.10.00 lakhs vide letter and its copy has been placed on record as Annexure P-4. Mr. Puri visited the premises on 28.09.2000 and complainant sent 4 more documents, vide letter marked as Annexure P-5. The piece-meal documents were sought and complainant felt that it would take enough time. Therefore, the complainant requested Sh.R.K. Puri, to supply the standard proforma, but the needful was not done despite complaints made to higher ups. The complainant sent 5 documents on 29.09.2000, vide Annexure P-6, 3 documents on 05.10.2000, vide Annexure P-7 and other documents on 06.10.2000, vide Annexure P-8. Again, 7 documents were sent on 16.10.2000 vide Annexure P-9, 7 documents were sent on 19.10.2000 vide Annexure P-10. Thereafter, there was lot of correspondence between the parties. Copies of this correspondence was placed on record as Annexures P-11 to P-23.
This is an admitted fact that the OPs released a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- on 12.01.2001, on the recommendation made by the Surveyor. On 12.05.2001, the complainant wrote letter to the OPs, as under :- " Dear Sir, Mr. R.K. Puri of M/s. Digamber Lal Puri & Sons is unwell since the third week of April, 2001. He has been hospitalised. It is immoral on our part to disturb him at this point of time. God bless him
with a fast recovery. He is likely to take a little longer for coming on the working ?.. (illegible). The case is lying unattended since very long. It has become unbearable to cope up any longer. Please advise".
On his request, Mr. Sanjeev K. Sharma, Chartered Account was appointed to assess and expedite the finalisation of the claim. Vide their joint report, issued by M/s. Digambar Lal Puri & Sons, dated 07.09.2001, recommended to the Insurance Company to give a sum of Rs. 32,00,000/- after necessary deduction Rs.31,90,924/- to the complainant plus Rs.8.00 lakhs which had already been paid. The grievance of the complainant is that the amount paid is inadequate. Consequently, he filed a complaint on 18.11.2002, with the following prayers :- " a) Direct the respondents to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.47,58,000/-.
b) Further pay likewise interest @ 2% p.m., on the amount awarded by the Hon''ble Commission, up to the date of payment.
c) Costs of these proceeds, and / or
d) Pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case".
The OPs have contested the present case. They have denied any deficiency on their part. It is averred that the said loss in the sum of Rs.40.00 lakhs was also consented by the complainant before the Surveyors. The Surveyors also recorded his consent. It is explained that the assessment made by the Surveyors cannot be questioned. All the other allegations have been denied.
We have heard the complainant in person and the counsel for the opposite parties and perused the written submissions filed by the complainant. Our attention was invited towards the interim report made by M/s. Digambar Lal Puri & Sons, dated 16.11.2000. The relevant paras of it, are reproduced here, as under :- "1. The exact cause of fire as explained in our above referred report is not yet established but in all probabilities, is said to be possibly the result of "Electric Short Circuit", which falls within the scope of perils covered under the policy.
As already mentioned in our report, loss under the captioned policy of insurance is "almost Total Loss''. No correct figure of loss is yet made out. However, as per very rough estimates available, it can be placed around Rs.50.00 lacs and keeping fairly safe margin, the interim payment of Rs.8.00 lacs is recommended. 3. Based on the facts and information available till date (details given in our report) liability of insurer''s under the captioned policy of insurance exists".
We have also perused the final report, dated 07/08 September, 2000, submitted by the Surveyors. The relevant paras run, as follows :- " The insured submitted a list of 2909 units valued at Rs.23,83,155/- as transferred from M/s. Parosh Gallery, i.e., Nidedhie (I) to M/s. St. Divyal. Apart from this, insured allegedly bought goods worth Rs.19,69,262/- from outside parties, the purchases from M/s. Pooja Spa were to the tune of Rs.4,08,895/- and form Niedhie to the tune of Rs.14,96,670/-. No payments to Pooja Spa and M/s. Niedhi were made till the date of loss (M/s. Niedhie (I) was a partnership firm between Mr.Trinath Khera and his wife). The transfer of goods from M/s. Nidhie (I) and M/s. Pooja Spa were being done at a value fixed arbitrarily as the insured is unwilling or unable to get the costing of these items verified. The insured in its Trading account as on the date of loss has shown a sale of Rs.11,43,640/-. However, there is no method to verify the alleged sales. However, looking to the high status goods, the market, and the fact that insured had suffered from a smaller shop to bigger shop, it is hard to justify a sale of Rs.11.43 lakhs against a purchase cum opening transfer of Rs.62.57 lakhs considering that if sales had a minimum of 30% add on, goods worth Rs.8 lakhs in cost were sold against a purchase of Rs.62.57 lakhs. This has to be viewed keeping in mind that Rs.3.50 lakhs rent to be paid per month".
The deductions made by the Surveyor in its concluding paras and from this extract are baseless and have no meaning. The case of the complainant is based on solid and unflappable documentary evidence. Consequently, the complainant is entitled to receive Rs.62,57,000/- minus Rs.40.00 lakhs, which he had already received, minus Rs.11,43,000/- the sale amount, i.e., total being Rs.11,14,000/- (Rs.62,57,000/- ,Rs.40,00,000/- , Rs. 11,43,000/-).
The complainant also submitted that the Ops cannot appoint a second surveyor. That argument pales into insignificance because the second surveyor was appointed at the request made by the complainant himself. The third contention raised by the complainant was that there was delay in payment of the claim amount. This argument too carries exiguous value because an
interim relief in the sum of Rs.8.00 lakhs was paid within six months and the matter was delayed due to the illness of the surveyor. The complainant has, himself, admitted the same and the said point is not capable of being rebutted. No surveyor''s report was concealed, as alleged, though the same was received by the complainant subsequently.
In the result, we hereby allow this complaint and direct the Insurance Company to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.11,14,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of filing of this complaint, i.e., 18.11.2002, till its realisation. The complainant is also awarded costs of case in the sum of Rs.1.00 lakh, which be paid by the Insurance Company, within 90 days'' from today, otherwise, it will carry interest @ 9% p.a., till realisation.