B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member:
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated August 29th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (for short District Forum), Panchkula, whereby complaint filed by M/s Ekta Poultries-complainant (respondent herein) seeking direction to the appellants-opposite parties to pay the benefits of insurance was accepted in the following terms:-
œ12.¦¦¦¦..we hereby allowed the complaint partly and direct the opposite parties as under:
1. To settle the claim of the complainant under the policies and pay Rs.5,63,388/- as assessed by surveyor vide its report (Annexure R1-2/D) dated 12/10/2011 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its recovery.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment suffered by the complainant as well as cost of litigation.?
2. Respondent got its poultry farm insured with the appellants-opposite parties vide insurance polices (Annexure C-2 and C-3( for Rs.74,80,000/- and Rs.55,00,000/- for the period September 1st, 2010 to August 31st, 2011.
3. On June 30th, 2011 a portion of the poultry farm building collapsed alongwith over head water tank due to heavy rain, due to which the cages along with water channel feeders, electrical fixtures and fittings installed therein got damaged. On being informed, the appellants deputed surveyor who inspected the premises. The respondent also got estimate prepared of the loss from an engineer namely Shri Sanjay Puri. However, the claim submitted by the respondent was repudiated by the appellants vide letter dated November 30th, 2011 (Annexure C-11). Legal notice (Annexure C-12) was also served upon the appellants but to no effect.
4. The respondent filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.
5. The appellants-opposite parties contested complaint by filing written statement stating therein that the claim of the respondent was not payable as the loss suffered by respondent was outside the scope of the terms and conditions of the œStandard Fire Special Peril Policy?.
6. On evaluating the evidence brought on the record, District Forum allowed complaint and issued direction as noticed in para first of this order.
7. In appeal before this Commission, learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the District Forum has misdirected itself in assuming that the Fire and Standard Perils Policy covers all losses whether or not caused by perils mentioned in the policy. The Fire Policy is named as peril policy and any loss for being admissible under it, must be caused by the operation of any of the perils mentioned therein.
8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants was confronted to enquire as to whether any inspection was carried out before issuance of the Insurance Policy or not? The answer to the question was in negative. If the appellants did not inspect the building before issuing the insurance policy and insured the building as it is, now it cannot be absolved from its liability by simply stating that damage was due to structural deficiency. Learned counsel for the appellants has admitted that it was A class structure which was insured with the appellants. There was no structural deficiency on the ground of which the claim was repudiated. The appellants have miserably failed to adduce even an iota of evidence to establish that there was any structural deficiency in the building and therefore now the appellants cannot back out from their liability to pay claim to the respondent.
9. After giving thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on the record, this Commission is of the firm view that the impugned order being passed in a perspective manner, requires no interference.
10. Hence, this appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
11. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.