The documents were already in the survey file
A fire on 2 September 2023 destroyed Harsh Ranta’s 30-room ancestral house in Daroti, Shimla. Oriental Insurance had insured the home for ₹1.25 crore under a Bharat Griha Raksha dwelling policy running from December 2022 to December 2027. Ranta notified the insurer and a surveyor inspected the loss. He then brought a consumer complaint because the claim remained unsettled.
Oriental said documents were still missing and argued that Ranta, as one of nine co-owners, could receive only one-ninth of the assessed sum. It also relied on a surveyor’s net assessment of ₹80,17,318 after 50% depreciation and a salvage deduction. Ranta disputed the document demand and produced loss estimates above the insured sum.
Why the commission rejected the objections
The Shimla District Consumer Commission found the fire and total destruction supported by the Tehsildar and Fire Officer records. It identified an FIR, revenue documents, fire report and utility bills already in the file and noted that the surveyor had been given them. In that setting, repeated demands for the same material did not justify keeping this claim open.
The other family members had no objection to Ranta receiving the proceeds. The commission rejected Oriental’s proposed one-ninth reduction on the evidence before it. It also examined the survey report rather than treating it as conclusive: the report recorded a higher sum insured at the time of loss but made a flat 50% depreciation and salvage deduction without persuasive reasons. The commission found those calculations inconsistent with the established total loss.
Oriental’s written defence had been struck off for lateness and it led no evidence, though the commission considered the survey documents on record. That procedural history is part of this result; the decision should not be turned into a universal rule that co-ownership or depreciation can never matter to a property claim.
The sum ordered
| Component | Amount |
|---|---|
| Fire loss under the policy | ₹1,25,00,000 |
| Mental harassment | ₹75,000 |
| Litigation costs | ₹25,000 |
| Fixed amounts, before interest | ₹1,26,00,000 |
| Interest on insured sum | 9% a year from complaint filing until payment |
The order of 2 July 2026 directed payment of the ₹1.25 crore insured sum plus ₹75,000 compensation and ₹25,000 costs, with 9% annual interest on the insured sum from the complaint’s filing date until payment. The fixed amounts add to ₹1.26 crore before interest. The order does not state a fixed ₹1.35 crore payout.
What Tatkal Claims would put side by side
For a similar fire file, the decisive comparison would be the insured building and sum insured, the surveyor’s document receipt list, the fire and revenue records, each unanswered document demand, and the actual depreciation and salvage calculations. Co-owners’ consent and the policy’s insured interest would need checking before challenging an apportionment objection.
Our claim-delay guide explains how to record repeated requests and the evidence already supplied.
For Oriental’s current grievance contacts and escalation levels, see the insurer-specific guide.
