PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.- 04/2022

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

Jayram Mahanand,

S/O- Mathu Mahanand, 

R/o-Beheramunda, Near Matulu Camp,

Po-Khinda, Ps-Thelkulei, Dist-Sambalpur,

Odisha-768212, 9937109137                       ...………..Complainant/Applicant

                                                Versus

1. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd,

Rourkela Branch, At- Choudhury Complex( Ground Floor)

Panposh Road, Rourkela, Dist-Sundargarh

Odisha-769004.

2. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

          45/46 2nd Floor of Hotel Basera,

          Ashok Nagar, Janpath, Bhubaneswar-751009.

3. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Registered Office, 2^nd Floor, Dare House-2

NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600001                       …………...Opp.Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :-       Mr. M.K. Panda & Associates
2. For the O.P.s                       :-       Sri. B.K. Purohit, Adv.

Date of Filing:25.01.2022,  Date of Hearing :29.08.2023  Date of Judgement : 31.10.2023

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The Complainant has filed the complaint petition against the O.Ps to direct them to pay Rs. 2,75,900/- after deducting the extended amount of Rs. 1,05,000/-, the Complainant sustained total loss a sum of Rs. 3,80,900/- due to electric shot circuit, the installing two nos of automatic paper plate & Dana making machine. The manufacturing unit was duly insured with the O.P. No.1 on dtd 21.10.2020 by paying premium of Rs. 3,078/- and total sum insured of Rs. 7,00,000/- and the insurance policy is valid from dtd. 21.10.2020 to till dtd. 20.10.2021 and the accident took place on dtd. 28.01.2021 which is within the period of validity.  After complying all the formalities the Complainant requested the O.P. No.1 to provide him actual loss amount of his unit so as to re-install his unit soon and restart his business. Thereafter one surveyor and loss Assessor appointed by the O.P. No.1 came on 07.02.2021 for assessment of the valuation of loss of the plant but surveyor not assessed the actual loss of plant, submitted the report to the O.P. no.1 and after repeated request to the O.P. no.1, he paid to the extent of Rs. 1,05,000/- on dt. 11.06.2021 to his loan account of loss due to aforesaid fire, So as to re-install his unit. For the aforesaid reason the Complainant needs to be properly compensated to meet his actual loss and damage so as to re-install his unit and can be able to pay remaining outstanding of loan amount to the bank.
2. The written version of the O.Ps is that the claim of the insured has already been settled by the insurance company and a sum of Rs. 1,05,086/- was already paid to the account of the insured through bank transfer to the account of Bank of Baroda, as against the loss assessed by the surveyor at Rs. 1,05,402/-. Hence, once a case has been settled fully and finally no more consumer dispute survives between the parties and as such this case is not maintainable.
3. After perusing the records, evidences and documents, it is found that after not satisfied with the survey report that of the surveyor, the Complainant filed this case. It is revealed from the survey Report, the surveyor was not able to verify any of the documents related to accounts and records and surveyor mentioned in his survey Report that as insured does not maintain any stock, purchase and sales register, we were not able to know the proper stock position of loss items. Hence, 60% has been deducted towards quantity and rate variance for stock & 40% towards rate variance for plant and machinery. In his observation, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9050 of 2018 stated that the Surveyor’s report is not the last and final word. As per provision (IA) of section 64UM⁶ of Insurance Act, 1938 “Every surveyor and loss assessor shall comply with the code of conduct in respect of their duties responsibilities and other professional requirements as may be specified by the regulations made by the Authority”. The discretion vested in the insurer to reject the report of the Surveyor in whole or in part, can not be exercised arbitral or whimsically and that if so done, there could be an allegation of deficiency in service.

So from the above discussion, the deficiency in service against O.Ps found. Hence, the O.Ps are directed to re-appoint a new surveyor and after following due procedure, settle the rest claim amount as per the assessment of the new surveyor and for the satisfaction of the Complainant within three month from receive of the copy of this order, failing which the O.Ps shall be liable to pay all the rest claim amount with 6% interest from date of filing of this case. The Complainant is directed to co-operate the surveyor as well as O.Ps to settle the matter and produce before them all documents related to accounts and records at the time of assessment.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 31^st day of October, 2023.

Supply frees copies to the parties.