news details |
|
|
| A case of migrant prop compensation: OPs directed to make payment | | | JAMMU, Dec 14: Justice (retd) G D Sharma and B L Saraf of the state consumer disputes redressal commission have ordered United India Insurance Co to make payment to the complainant against the insurance of his house which was damaged in an earthquake at Sangrampura in Sopore, Kashmir few years back.
The commission directive came today in a complaint filed by Madan Lal Mantoo of Sangrampura. A Kashmiri migrant, he at present is putting up at Anand Nagar, Bohri, here.
As per the complaint, Mantoo, after his migration from Sangrampura, had got his residential house insured from OPs vide policy NO.111404/01l1/483/0S and the insured risk was covered for an amount of Rs 8 lakh.
On October 8, 2005, during the period of his insurance policy, earthquake of severe intensity struck Kashmir valley, resulting in loss to life and property of the people. A his insured house too suffered total loss, claim was raised with OPs which was registered
under No 207/05. M/S Alak Consultants was appointed to survey and assess the loss.
Ravi Dhar, loss assessor and surveyor, visited the spot in the absence of the complainant and made assessment. The OPs acted upon his report and vide their letter dated April 28, 2006 approved the loss to the extent of Rs 33,699.
The grouse of the complainant was that the assessment of the loss made by M/S Alak Consultants was wrong. The complainant wrote to the OPs for the appointment of 2nd surveyor but his request was rejected vide letter dated October 9, 2006.
The complainant then moved the commission in December 2006 and filed a complaint the OPs. In cross-examination, Mantoo stated that the house was built 10/12
years before the earthquake and it was not damaged due to non-occupancy as claimed by the OPs. Witnesses Bansi Lal and Sanjay Tak also submitted affidavits before
the commission, stating that the house was damaged completely in the earthquake.
Dr Rashid Makroo, divisional manager, in his cross-examination, sated that in case the Insurer or insured were not satisfied with the surveyor's report, the insurance company may approach Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA) for fresh appointment of surveyor. In this case, he admitted that the insured was not
satisfied with the report of the surveyor but they did not refer matter to IRDA because OPs were satisfied with his report. After hearing the two sides, Justice Sharma and Saraf directed the OPs to reimburse to the complainant by making deduction of 30 pc
from the insured value of Rs 8 lakh of the insured building.
"We adopt this method because at this stage there is no use for the appointment of any fresh surveyor. The deduction of 30 pc from the assured liability would cover the price of the salvage material as well as depreciation value of the insured building which admittedly was constructed 10/12 years ago from the date of the loss," they
said.
They said the complainant was also entitled to interest on the awarded amount at the rate of 6 pc per annum from January 14, 2006, when the report of M/S Alak Consultants was received till the final payment was made. The litigation expenses were quantified at Rs 5,000. The complaint was accordingly consigned to the records.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
