Back
2012(2) CPR 65
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
Thiru M. Thanikachalam, President; Thiru A.K. Annamalai and Thiru S. Sambandam, Members
National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. —Appellant
versus
T. Sharmila Jain —Respondent
F.A. Nos. 363 and 463 of 2010
Decided on 20.2.2012
Counsel for the Parties:
FA No. 363 of 2010:
For the Appellants:N. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. S. Muthuvenkatraman, Advocate.
FA No. 363 of 2010:
For the Appellant:Mr. S. Muthuvenkatraman, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance Company cannot appoint many Surveyors to suit its need.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15 and 17—Insurance—Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy—Damage to stocks due to rain—Compensation of Rs. 25,000 and cost of Rs. 5,000 awarded by District Forum—When first Surveyor report was disputed as unreasonable or against factual position, Insurance Act mandates referring the matter to “authority” concerned, for further action, thereby preventing Insurance Company to appoint a second surveyor, as they like—Appointment of second Surveyor once again his request to furnish documents, which were already furnished to 1st surveyor, are all unwarranted—This procedure adopted by Insurance Company should be construed as negligence and deficiency in service—Insurance Company cannot escape from settlement of claim which they have agreed to settle under the policy—However, having ordered 9% interest which will take care of compensation part also, awarding compensation of Rs.25,000, once again is not legally sound—Impugned order modified. (Paras 9 to 13)
Thiru M. Thanikachalam, President—The opposite parties and complainants in C.C. No. 222/ 2008, on the file of District Forum, Chennai (North), are the appellants in F.A. No. 363/2010 and 463/2010 respectively.
2. The parties are referred in this order, as arrayed in the complaint.
3. The complainant, who is running a business, had purchased Chappals from Tata advertiser stocked in their godown, which were insured for a sum of
Rs. 2,75,000, for the period covering 9.11.2004 to 8.11.2005. Due to monsoon and heavy torrential rains, the godown was flooded causing damage to the stocks of the sandals insured, incurring a loss of Rs.1,86,085, which was reported to the opposite party also.
4. A Surveyor nominated by the opposite party, inspected the premises, and it appears he had filed a report, on that basis only a sum of Rs.28,860 was offered, denied. Despite repeated request to honour the legitimate claim of the complainant, the opposite party attempted to appoint another surveyor, and failed to settle the claim, which should be construed as deficiency in service. The opposite party, despite the submission of the records, required by a Surveyor nominated by them, failed to assess the damage properly, and the opposite party also failed to honour the legitimate claim, thereby compelling the complainant to file the case, not only seeking the value of the goods, but also seeking rental charges including compensation for mental agony.
5. The opposite parties, not challenging the policy, and the sum assured, resisted the case as follows:
As mandated under the Insurance Act, a Surveyor was appointed, who had verified the documents, inspected the premises and assessed the loss at Rs.28,860, which was offered, not accepted, cannot be treated as deficiency in service. In view of the fact, the complainant was not satisfied with the previous surveyor, M/s. Shanmugam Associates was appointed for a review, and the request of the 2nd surveyor, to submit the records was not complied with by the complainant. Therefore, neither the non-settlement of the claim, as claimed by the complainant, nor in not accepting the 1st surveyor’s value, cannot be construed as deficiency, warranting a huge sum of compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 or for the alleged loss of Rs.1,86,085, the further fact being, there is no provision for paying rent, praying for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. The District Forum, evaluating the documents relied on by both parties, based upon admitted facts and proof affidavits, came to the conclusion, that the offer made by the opposite parties, on the basis of the Surveyor report, should be construed as deficiency in service, that since the damage to the goods was admitted, as per the policy, they ought to have paid the amount, and the non-payment also should be construed as deficiency in service. The District Forum, taking the value of the Chappals per pair, deducting the salvage value, as ascertained from the documents, deduced a conclusion, that the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.80 per pair, and on that basis, calculating the damage caused to number of pairs, fixed the loss sustained by the complainant, at Rs.1,55,450, ordering to pay the same with interest, in addition to another sum of Rs. 25,000 as compensation, with cost of Rs.5,000 as per order dated 23.3.2010, which is impugned by the opposite party, and giving not satisfaction to the complainant, resulting an appeal for negative claim by the complainant as said above.
7. Under Ex. A1, admittedly the complainant had taken a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy, for the period from 9.11.2004 to 8.11.2005, covering the risk viz. stock of Sandals (Chappals) to the extent of Rs. 2,75,000. This policy covers the damage to the stock by flood also, not under challenge. Admittedly during the currency of the policy, damage caused to the stocks, and therefore he lodged a claim, for which a surveyor, as seen from Exs. B15 to B17, based upon the stock purchase bills register, h
