Back
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava,
President & Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Member
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.—Appellant
versus
DEV SPINNERS LTD. & ANR.—Respondents
Appeal Case No. 128 of 2004—Decided on 24.5.2004
Insurance Claim - Machinery Damage - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 12, Section 14, Section 21 - The court discussed the assessment of loss, deficiency in service, and acceptance of claim money without protest under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a Limited Company, purchased new machinery for its new unit, which was damaged during transit. The insurance company paid a partial amount, but the complainant sought the balance and additional costs incurred due to the damage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurance company committed deficiency in service by not considering the evidence of damage and payments made by the complainant. The court also ruled that the complainant's acceptance of the partial payment did not estop them from seeking further relief.
Issues: The issues were whether the survey report was comprehensive and if the complainant's acceptance of the partial payment without protest estopped them from seeking further relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the assessment of loss by the surveyor was not correctly done and that the insurance company committed deficiency in service. The court also ruled that the complainant was not estopped from filing the complaint despite accepting the partial payment.
Final Decision: The court upheld the decision of the District Forum, dismissing the appeal and leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Member—This is an appeal against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh [hereinafter for short, referred to as District Forum-II] dated 9.12.2003 in Complaint Case No. 432 of 2001, M/s. Dev Spinners Ltd. v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others.
2. The complaint in brief is that the complainant which is a Limited Company, purchased new machinery for starting its new unit from M/s. LMW Limited Company, Coimbatore and this new plant was to be commissioned in July, 1998. The machinery was transported from Coimbatore to Dera Bassi, District Patiala through O.P. No. 3. The machines were duly insured for transit by the O.P. Insurance Company i.e., O.P. Nos. 1 and 2. Copy of the Insurance Cover Note is Annexure C-4. On 14.6.1998 O.P. No. 3 informed the complainant that the truck carrying the machinery had met with an accident. On 16.6.1998 the complainant informed O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of this accident. Copy of the F.I.R. along with photographs of the accidental truck were also handed over to O.P. Nos. 1 and 2. The complainant had paid to O.P. No. 2 Rs. 16,025/- as freight charges, Annexure C-7 refers. The complainant received the damaged material from O.P. No. 3 on 19.6.1998 and asked them to pay the damage to the tune of Rs. 5,25,000/-. The complainant also requested O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 to inspect the material to assess the loss. The complainant got the loss assessed from M/s. Voltas Limited who is the sole erection engineers agents of M/s. LMW Ltd. M/s. Voltas Limited prepared their report of loss and ICRs of the damaged goods. It was stated by them that some of the material had been completely damaged and declared these as scrap. It also opined that the main component i.e., Blower Room Machine was completely damaged. The report of M/s. Voltas Limited was handed over by the complainant to the O.P. Insurance Company for payment of the claim for damaged goods but the O.P. Insurance Company gave no reply. A copy of the certificate of damaged material is annexed as Annexure C-9. Value of the damaged material declared as scrap was assessed by M/s. Singla Hardware Store as Rs. 4,550/- Annexure C-10 refers. To commissioning the new unit the complainant had to purchase new machinery worth Rs. 3,91,492/- in lieu of the damaged machinery. Invoices for the same have been annexed as Annexures C-11/1 to C-11/24. Also new Electric Control Panel (WCS) had to be purchased for Rs. 1,27,098.40 to replace the WCS completely damaged in the accident. In all, the complainant avers, that an additional sum of Rs. 5,34,615/- had to be spent by the complainant for purchasing new machinery to commission the new unit. Even then the commissioning of the plant got delayed and the complainant had to suffer financial loss. On there part the O.P. Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor who inspected the damaged material but did not submit a copy of his report to the complainant. The O.P. Insurance Company without disclosing any basis, delivered the complainant a cheque for Rs. 2,37,615/- in June, 1999. The complainant on receiving this cheque requested the O.P. Insurance Company to review the case, as his actual loss was Rs. 5,34,615/- at the same time he accepted the amount of Rs. 2,37,615/- under protest as part payment/partial settlement. Since, no further action was taken by the O.P. Insurance Company, hence this complaint praying for following relief:
(a) Payment of balance amount of Rs. 2,97,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum w.e.f. June, 1998 till realization.
(b) Payment of cost of litigation as well as loss of interest as deemed fit because the complainant had to spend by raising of loan from financial institutions.
(c) Payment of heavy cost for harassment as deemed appropriate.
3. O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 have stated that the loss as assessed by the Surveyor is Rs. 2,37,615/-. It is asserted that the claim put forward by the complainant is highly exaggerated. Surveyor report has been annex
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
