V.K. Jain, Presiding Member (Oral)

The complainant/petitioner obtained an insurance policy to the extent of Rs.30 lakhs in respect of its factory premises on plot No.172 in Sector-3 HSIIDC, Karnal. Due to heavy rain and strong wind, one side wall and upper portion of the walls of a shed in the factory collapsed, as a result of which, the shed roof fell on the ground. On intimation being given to the insurer, a surveyor was appointed to assess the loss. Before the surveyor, a claim of Rs.7,02,150/- was submitted by the petitioner/complainant. The surveyor, however, assessed the loss at Rs.3,36,126/-. After applying depreciation, salvage value and excess clause, the net loss to the complainant was assessed at Rs.1,01,763/-. However, vide its letter dated 28.7.2011, the insurer repudiated the claim. The repudiation letter to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:-

'After going through the survey report and further clarifications submitted by independent surveyor, he assessed the loss for Rs.101763 which was not happened due to the perils covered under the policy since the storm peril which is covered under the policy is with a speed of 89 km/ph or more and in your case it was 8.9 km/ph. Further he confirmed that all sheets/trusses of the shed have fell down centrally on the ground and not even a single sheet had been blown out. The building was covered from all sides, three sides were lantered and one side has covered passage, hence it was not possible that shed can fell down due to storm in any case and there was no other loss in the area on that day & time.

He confirmed that claim does not fall under storm risk and is not payable under the scope of policy. Thus we are repudiating the above said claim.'

2. Being aggrieved from the repudiation of the claim, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint. The complaint was resisted by the insurer primarily on the same grounds on which the claim had been repudiated.

3. Vide its order dated 27.10.2014, the District Forum directed the insurer to pay a sum of Rs.1,01,763/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a., compensation quantified at Rs.25,000/- and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.2200/-.

4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 19.1.2016, the State Commission held the petitioner entitled for Rs.3,36,126/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint in addition to the compensation awarded by the District Forum for the harassment and mental agony, etc. Still dissatisfied, the petitioner is before us by way of this revision petition.

5. It is an admitted positon that the petitioner/complainant had submitted an estimate of Rs.7,02,150/- to the surveyor. It is also not in dispute that the shed in question was constructed in the year 1993. It was, therefore, 17 years old at the time it allegedly got damaged. The surveyor, therefore, applied deprecation of 50% to the assessment made by him. Since the policy taken by the petitioner was not a policy on reinstatement basis, the depreciation was rightly applied by the surveyor. The shed in question being 17 years old, the petitioner was not entitled to its replacement by a new construction. If 50% depreciation

is applied to the estimate of Rs.7,02,150/- submitted by the complainant himself, the resultant amount, after deduction of salvage etc. would come to less than what has been awarded by the State Commission. Therefore, there is no ground for further enhancement of the amount awarded by the State Commission. The revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.