Judgment:
A. Venkatarami Reddy, President:
1. It is not in dispute that the complainant took fire assurance policy from the opposite parties covering the period from 1.5.91 to 30.4.92. The policy covers building and electrical fittings at Rs. 1,20,000/-, machinery and fitting accessories at Rs. 20,000/-, stocks and timber seized and unseized logs at Rs. 1,50,000/- in all a sum of Rs.. 2,90,000/. It is also not in dispute that on the intervening night of 23/24-7-1991 a fire accident occurred in the insured premises. According to the complainant he immediately informed about the fire accident on telephone to the opposite parties and also issued an express telegram on 25.7.91. The loss was estimated by the complainant as Rs. 46,000/- to the building and electrical fittings, Rs. 4,000/- to the machinery, fittings and accessories, Rs. 60,000/- towards the loss of timber, in all a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/-. The case of the complainant is that inspite of his intimating the loss, the Insurance Company although stated that the survey was entrusted to one S. Mohan Reddy, but in fact no survey was conducted inspite of his letter dated 5.8.91 which was acknowledged by the opposite parties on 9.8.91. The complainant, therefore, claimed a total sum of Rs. 1,17,100/- towards the loss and a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards Compensation with interest and costs.
2. The opposite parties filed a counter admitting the coverage of fire accident under the policy. But on receiving the information they appointed an independent Surveyor who assessed the loss and on receipt of the report from the Surveyor they sent a letter dated (Dic.) to the complainant informing that they are prepared to settle the claim at Rs. 24,705/-. It was further stated that the Surveyor appointed by them inspected the premises on 24.7.91 and again on 5.8.91 and estimated the loss at Rs. 24,700/-. Since they informed the complainant that they are prepared to settle the claim for that amount, there is no deficiency of service on their part.
3. No oral evidence was adduced by both the parties. On behalf of the complainant Exs. Al to A8 were marked and on behalf of the opposite parties Exs. B1 to B5 were marked.
4. Since it is not case of repudiation of the liability by the Insurance Company, the only question that arises for consideration in this complaint is with regard to the quantum of loss suffered by the complainant on account of the fire accident.
5. Ex. A1 is a fire policy issued by the opposite parties, Ex. A2 are the acknowledgements. Ex. A3 is a letter dated 24.7.91 written by the Insurance Company to the complainant stating that they have entrusted the survey to one Mohan Reddy, Surveyor of Nizamabad, who already proceeded to the spot to conduct the survey of the logs and requested the complainant to extend his co-operation. Ex. A4 is a letter written by the complainant to the opposite parties dated 5.8.91 enclosing the claim forms, police panchanama, police copy, fire station report and cutting of a newspaper. Ex. A5 is the fire claim form wherein the complainant claimed a sum of Rs. 46,000/- towards saw mill shed, Rs. 4,000/- towards machinery and accessories, Rs. 60,000/- towards stocks of timber in all a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/. Ex. A6 is the extract of newspaper. Ex. A7 is the fire service attendance certificate which shows that the fire accident took place on that day and the complainant reported the loss as Rs. 1,10,000/- to the fire service people. Ex. A8 is panchanama which merely gives the details of the stock and the electric motor and other items which were damaged in the fire accident. It is clear from the aforesaid documents that in none of them the loss was assessed except in the claim statement, wherein the complainant claimed Rs. 1,10,000/-.
6. Ex. B-1 is the letter dated 24.7.91 by the Insurance Company to the complainant and Ex. B2 is the letter from the Insurance Company to the Surveyor dated 28.11.91, Ex. B3is the letter from the Surveyor to the complainant dated 6.1.92 which shows that he visited the spot on 24.7.91 and 4.8.91. Ex. B5 is the final report of the Surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs. 20,336.64 ps.
7. It is, therefore, clear that the Surveyor inspected the accident premises and assessed the loss at Rs. 20,336.64 ps. In the absence of any evidence adduced by the complainant to show that the actual loss suffered by him is more than the Surveyors report or that the Surveyors report is defective in certain particulars and therefore cannot be accepted, we are satisfied that the Surveyors report has to be taken into consideration.
8. In the counter filed, the Insurance Company stated that it informed the complainant by its letter dated 23.3.92 that they would settle the claim for a sum of Rs. 24,705/-. But it is submitted by Mr. Kota Subba, Rao the learned Counsel for the opposite parties that in offering the said amount by mistake a sum of Rs. 4,975/- which the surveyor included towards panel damage was not taken into consideration. Since the policy stipulates the damage to the origin of the fire should be excluded, this amount of Rs. 4,975/- should be deducted from Rs. 24,705/-. But we are not inclined to accept the aforesaid submission as the Insurance Company offered the said claim by its letter dated 23.3.92 at Rs. 24,705/-, and it is bound to pay the said sum. We are also not satisfied that the surveyor is justified in making the said deduction of Rs. 4,975/-. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the complainant that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Since the Insurance Company offered to pay the amount which is a little bit more than that assessed by the Surveyor, we are satisfied that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Insurance Company.
9. It is next submitted that there is delay in settling the claim, the complainant is entitled for payment of interest.
10. The accident took place on 23/24.7.91. Taking the reasonable period of 3 months for settling the claim, the opposite parties are liable to pay interest on Rs. 24,705/- @ 15% from 1.11.91.
11. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 24,705/- either to the Andhra Bank, Siddipet, or if the complainant had already discharged the loan, due to the above Bank, to the complainant on getting clearance certificate from the Bank, with interest @ 15% p.a. from 1.11.91 till the date of payment. There shall be no order as to costs in this complaint.
Complaint partly allowed.