V.K. Jain ORDER
V.K. Jain, J. (Presiding Member)
1. The complainant company obtained a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy for the period from 3.11.2012 to 2.11.2013 with respect to the building, furniture, and fixtures & fittings, plant and machinery, stock of raw-material, finished goods, stock in progress, etc. to the extent of Rs. 5,90,00,000/-. The case of the complainant is that in an incident of fire which took place in its factory premises, there was major loss of and damage to the building, machinery, stock etc. which had been insured under the aforesaid policy. On intimation being given to the insurer, a surveyor was appointed to assess the loss to the complainant. The surveyor assessed the loss to the complainant at about Rs. 1,41,00,000/-. An amount of Rs. 14001008/- was paid to the complainant, after it had executed the discharge voucher for payment of the said amount. The case of the complainant, as set out in the complaint, is that the surveyor did not correctly assess the loss suffered by it, which in fact was to the extent of Rs. 4,72,00,000/-. This is also the case of the complainant that discharge voucher in favour of the insurer was executed by it under pressure, on account of the financial difficulties which the complainant faced at the time the loss happened. The complainant is, therefore, before this Commission with the following prayers:-
1. A sum of Rs. 2,28,48,180/- being the balance amount of claim for loss of/damage to the insured property as a result of the said fire on 30.11.2012.
2. A sum of Rs. 3,82,000/- towards debris removal expenses incurred and paid by the complainant.
3. Interest @12 % per annum on the said amount of Rs. 23230180/- from 30.11.2012 up to the date of this complaint and thereafter upto the date of realization.
4. A sum of Rs. 500000/- towards harassment caused to the complainant in entering into avoidable correspondence and consequent expenses.
5. The costs of this litigation."
2. The complaint has been resisted by the insurer which has claimed that the surveyor had rightly assessed the loss at Rs. 14191970/- and after some deductions, a sum of Rs. 14001008/- was paid to the complainant on 27.12.2013 and the said payment was duly accepted by the complainant. The payment was actually made to the bank with whom the factory and stock etc. had been hypothecated/mortgaged.
3. It is an admitted position that the complainant had duly executed a discharge voucher in favour of the insurer before the aforesaid amount was paid to it. It is also not in dispute that the amount paid to the complainant was based upon the assessment made by the surveyor. It is alleged in para 23 of the complaint that the complainant having suffered considerable harassment due to delay in consideration of the claim was incurring Rs. 6 lakhs per month as interest besides the loss of business and, therefore, had no option but to accept immediately discharge voucher sent by the OP to receive the amount offered by it. This is also the case of the complainant that the copy of the report of the surveyor had not been made available to it by the time the aforesaid payment was accepted and the said report was obtained under Right to Information Act on 20.3.2014.
4. I expressly asked the learned counsel for the complainant to show to me the letter sent by the insurer to the complainant offering the amount of Rs. 14001008/-. No letter making such an offer has been shown. The learned counsel for the complainant states that in fact the letter was sent by the insurer to the banker on 1.8.2013 and on the banker having informed the complainant, the discharge voucher was executed, in order to obtain the amount being offered by the insurer. Even the letter addressed to the bank has not been produced. Be that as it may, I proceed on the assumption that the insurer offered the amount of Rs. 14001008/- to the banker of the complainant which conveyed the said offer to the complainant on 3.8.2013 as is stated by the learned counsel for the complainant and it was in terms of the said offer that a discharge voucher was executed by the complainant, though the date of the discharge voucher is not known, neither........