IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance Company cannot be directed to satisfy fabricated claims.

Smt. Veena Misra, Member—This order will govern disposal of Complaint No. 74/2009 between M/s Satyam Jute Udyog v. National Insurance Co. (the No. of earlier Complaint 20/2006); Complaint No. 75/2009 between M/s Shivam Jute Udyog v. National Insurance Co. (the No. of Earlier Complaint 19/2006) and Complaint No. 76/2009 between M/s Goyal Jute Udyog v. National Insurance Co. (the No. of Earlier Complaint 21/2006) because the dispute involved in all the aforesaid complaints is similar in nature and the surveyor also has given one report as all the claimant firms belong to one single family, and the stock of all the firms allegedly damaged was stored in one single godown. In this order facts of Complaint No.74/2009 are being mentioned.

2. Complainant has filed present complaint under Section 17(1) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking relief of compensation of Rs.49,99,800 against OPs together with interest 1 @ 18% p.a. from the date of claim till final payment.

3. It is worthwhile to mention that earlier this Commission dismissed the complaint on the principle of res judicata. The complainant had approached National Commission and the National Commission vide order dated 12.1.2010 allowed the appeal and directed this Commission to deal with the complaint in accordance with law. It was stated in the order that the respondents shall ensure that the investigator-cum-surveyor submits the report in 4 months and the same is filed before the State Commission. It was also stipulated that the complainants shall cooperate with investigator-cum-surveyor.

4. In the present complaint, the complainant has stated that the order passed by this Commission dated 31.3.2009 stipulated that after submission of claim form within one month from the date of order, the insurer was required to decide the claim within a period of two months from the date of submission of claim form. After appointment of Shri S. K. Kansal as surveyor he tried to delay the matter on some pretext or the other. Earlier, when he was informed on phone that the complainant would not be able to arrange for survey because the Proprietor was sick and has gone for treatment to Nagpur, the surveyor stated that he is investigator and he would conduct the survey secretly and there is no need to make any enquiry from the complainant. He also told on phone that he had received all necessary information from Shri S. K. Sur and has inspected the godown and would file his report within the stipulated period. But subsequently, surveyor wrote a letter dated 20.6.2009, which was received by the complainant on 29.6.2009 that the complainant is not cooperating in investigation. The complainant suitably replied the letter on 30.6.2009 referring to the conversation between the surveyor and the complainant on telephone. It is stated in the complaint that as even after the stipulated period, the surveyor has not submitted his report. Hence the complainant has approached this Commission once again. It is further stated in the complaint that regarding the incident under claim, the complainant had given intimation in writing on 22.9.2006 and Surveyor/Valuer was appointed, who had assessed the loss, but during pendency of earlier Complaint No.20/2006, the insurer denied to have appointed the surveyor. It is alleged in the complaint that if the surveyor Shri S. K. Sur, was not appointed by the Insurance Company, the insurer had failed to follow the instructions of the Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders’ Interests) Regulations, 2002, Section 9 relating to claim procedure in respect of general insurance policy, wherein it is stipulated that within 72 hours the insurer is required to appoint surveyor but the insurer failed to follow the aforesaid provision. Now after order dated 31.3.2009 passed in Complaint Case No.20/2006 also the surveyor has failed to follow the directions of this commission and has not submitted the report. On the basis of aforesaid allegatio