Back
THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Garg, President; Mr. Sada Nand & Mrs. P. Ojha, Members
ANUPAM METALS—Complainant
versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.—Respondents/Opp. Parties
Complaint Case No. 13 of 1997—Decided on 23.9.1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. A.S. Walia, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Pardeep Bedi, Advocate.
An insurance company is not deficient in service if it assesses the loss diligently and offers to pay the amount of loss assessed by the surveyors.
Headnote:
INSURANCE - CLAIM - BURGLARY - ASSESSMENT OF LOSS - SURVEYORS' REPORT - RELIABILITY - DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE - INTEREST - COSTS.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a manufacturer of metallic furniture, suffered a burglary in its premises on 4.7.1996. The complainant had four insurance policies issued by the respondent insurance company covering the loss. The insurance company appointed surveyors to assess the loss. The surveyors submitted a report recommending a loss of Rs. 60,074/-. The complainant was dissatisfied with the assessment and filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
Finding of the Court:
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum held that the insurance company had been diligent in assessing the loss and that there was no deficiency in service except that the insurance company was prepared to remit Rs. 60,074/-, which was the quantum of loss assessed. The Forum also held that the complainant was entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. from 4.10.1996 till realization and costs of Rs. 2,000/-.
Issues: 1. Whether the insurance company was deficient in service in assessing the loss? 2. Whether the complainant was entitled to interest and costs?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The insurance company had appointed surveyors to assess the loss. The surveyors submitted a report recommending a loss of Rs. 60,074/-. The complainant was dissatisfied with the assessment and filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. 2. The Forum held that the insurance company had been diligent in assessing the loss and that there was no deficiency in service except that the insurance company was prepared to remit Rs. 60,074/-, which was the quantum of loss assessed.
Final Decision: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum ordered the insurance company to pay Rs. 60,074/- to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 4.10.1996 till realization and costs of Rs. 2,000/-.
Mr. Justice J.B. Garg, President— The complainant manufactures of metallic furniture and is situate at Plot No. 279, Industrial Area, Ph IX, SAS Nagar, Mohali, since 1995. It possessed four Insurance Policies issued by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. having its Divisional Office at Chandigarh. The details of the policies mentioned in para 2 of the complaint are as under :
“Sr.
No.
Policy No.
Dt. Of
Policy
Property
insured
Period
of Ins.
Amt.
Ins.
Premium
paid
1.
1135030500304
6.10.1995
Building & stocks, raw materials
6.10.1995
to
5.10.1996
6 lacs
4 lacs
––
10 lacs
Rs. 2,514/-.
2.
4635030500097
12.7.1995
Plant & machinery
12.7.1995
to
11.7.1996
7.2 lacs
Rs. 719/-.
3.
4635030500178
6.10.1995
Stocks of raw material
6.10.1995
to
5.10.1996
4 lacs
Rs. 200/-.
4.
4036230007059
8.3.1996
Household goods
8.3.1996
to
7.3.1997
2 lacs
Rs. 2074/-.”
The aforesaid policies pertained to building, stocks, raw-material, plant and machinery and also house-hold goods. It has been alleged that on 4.7.1996, a major burglary took place in the premises of the complainant wherefrom machinery, raw materials, finished and unfinished stock, house-hold articles, jewellery, etc. were stolen. An FIR No. 99 was lodged on 5.7.1996 for offences u/ Secs. 457/380, IPC at P.S. Phase VIII, SAS Nagar, Mohali. A copy of the FIR is Annexure C5. It was recorded by Sh. Sadhu Singh, SI. The respondents appointed M/s. Consolidated Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh, to conduct the survey and Sh. M.S. Sidhu started the survey proceedings, which were held from 5th to 9th July. The complainant had been supplying various documents and details required by the Surveyors. However, on 27.7.1996, some more documents were demanded and those were also supplied through a forwarding letter dated 2.8.1996 (AnnexureC10). Some more details were supplied as required. One more Surveyor Mr. Rakesh Kumar was also deputed in addition to Mr. M.S. Sidhu, by the respondents and since the claim remained dissatisfied, the present complaint has been instituted demanding a sum of Rs. 15.00 lacs as compensation on account of loss covered by means of the aforesaid policies and the deficiency on the part of the respondents.
2. The respondents-1 and 2 filed a reply, wherein the fact that the complainant possessed the insurance policies has been admitted. It has also been admitted that M/s. Consolidated Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. as well as Mr. Rakesh K. Khanna, were appointed as Surveyors because the claim related to several policies issued by different offices of the respondent-Insurance Company. It has also been averred that the claim of the complainant was admissible for Rs. 60,074/-. There is a plea that the Surveyors have not been impleaded as respondents in the present complaint. The Surveyors recommended the loss to the tune of Rs. 60,074/- under Policies No. 4635030500097 and 4635030500278. The Surveyors disallowed the ‘bogus portion’ of the demand made by the complainant. The plea that some raw-material was also stolen was not mentioned in the FIR and it was added subsequently. The list of purchases supplied by the complainant did not contain a mention regarding payment of sales-tax and such purchases were not relied upon. The complainant was offered a sum of Rs. 60074/- subject to his furnishing the documents enumerated in para 3 of the preliminary objections and the rest of the claim has been totally denied.
3. The plea of the respondents from the very beginning had been that the claim regarding losses is an inflated one. In the FIR, no mention was made regarding theft of valuables from residential premises. The insured in order to avail the term loan from Punjab National Bank furnished the bills allegedly issued by the suppliers to complainant are detailed as under :
Sr.
No.
Name of the Supplier
Bill No.
Dated
Amount
1.
M/s. Omega Machine Tolls, Mohali
142/95
12.5.1995
1,57,000
2.
Holly Enterprises, Mohali
75
3.7.1995
3,77,000
3.
Machinery & Hardware Store, Mohali
28080
25.7.1995
28,700
4.
-do-
28061
25.7.1995
6,490
5.
-do-
28062
25.7.1995
30,285
6.
Sandhu Machine
1209
29.6
