UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs N.T. Babu

THE Complainant Sh. N.T. Babu, took a shopkeeper policy for the sum assured Rs. 5,25,000. On 20.4.2003, an advertisement board which was installed on the roof of adjacent building got uprooted from its foundation and fell on the shop of the Complainant, resulting in damages to his shop, including furniture and electric fittings, etc., and he intimated it to United India Insurance Company Ltd., the Petitioner/OP. The OP deputed a Surveyor, Mr. P. Sugumaran, who assessed the loss at Rs. 56,767. The OP offered Rs. 40,765, after deducting the salvage value of Rs. 6,000 and policy excess of Rs. 10,000. The Complainant declined the offer and filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, ''District Forum''), Palakkad, claiming a compensation of Rs. 4,92,456 and damages of Rs. 54,750 with 12% interest from 21.5.2003 till the date of payment. The District Forum allowed the claim and directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 3,44,016.50 with 12% interest from the date of filing till the date of realization along with a costs of Rs. 3,000.

AGGRIEVED by the order of District Forum, the OP filed first appeal before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter, ''State Commission''). The State Commission dismissed the appeal. Hence, against the order of State Commission, this revision was filed.

We have heard the Counsel for both the parties. The Counsel for the petitioner explained, satisfactorily, the reasons for delay of 26 days in filing this revision petition, hence this delay is condoned. The Counsel for OP further argued on merit, that the surveyor made his report on the basis of actual verification of stocks during spot inspection and on the basis of the damaged items list, submitted on 25.4.2003, by the complainant to the tune of Rs. 60,990. Since the Insurance Company got the loss assessed as per law, the burden was upon the Complainant to prove his claim by producing documentary evidence. Hence, the survey report can be taken as the basis to access the loss. Hence, there was no deficiency by OP.

THE learned Counsel for the complainant vehemently argued on the point of the quantum of damages occurred. He contended that, the officials of the Palakkad Branch of South Indian Bank had inspected the shop on April 8, 2003 and in their report in Ext. XI, total stock was shown as Rs. 5 lakh. The incident took place on April 20, 2003 and it was an admitted case that entire stock was damaged. The Surveyor in his report mentioned the Ext. B3, the stock statement taken on 25.4.2003, as the value of total stock as Rs. 2,83,026.50 and the value of damaged item as Rs. 60,990 in Ext. B2.

WE have perused the photographs available on file produced by the Complainant and the report of the surveyor, which shows that entire stock had been damaged in rain, hence the value of the total articles comes to Rs. 3,44,016.50. It is surprising to note as to, how the OP arrived at the conclusion that the admissible claim is Rs. 40,765 only. It is a meager amount and is not acceptable. The Surveyor report is not a final word, we place reliance upon the following authorities: (a) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Giriraj Proteins, : IV (2012) CPJ 151(NC).

(b) Mahinder Bansal v. UHBVNL, : IV (2012) CPJ 154 (NC).

(c) Noor Ali v. National Insurance Company Limited, : IV (2010) CPJ 60 (SC) : (2009) 17 SCC 565.

(d) Nifty Chemicals Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors., : III (2009) SLT 547 : (2009) 17 SCC 566.

The arguments advanced by the Counsel for OP are devoid of merit, hence, we dismiss this revision petition. No orders as to costs.