Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ashok Bhan, President and Vineeta Rai, Member
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. —Appellant
versus
M/s Trimurti Tablewares Ltd. —Respondent
First Appeal No. 279 of 2008
(Against the order dated 30.04.2008 in Complaint No. 29/2006 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh)
Decided on 18.04.2013
For Appellant:Mr. Kishore Rawat, Advocate.
For Respondent:Mr. V.K. Sharma, with Mr. Suryakant Sharma, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
It would not be fair or reasonable to reject even genuine claims of insuree which had been verified and found to be correct by Surveyor.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Massive damage to factory as also to raw and finished material due to rains—Complaint allowed by Fora below—In floods that occurred substantial damage was caused to all three items as confirmed by Surveyor in its report—In a large number of consumer cases pertaining to insurance claims Insurance Companies based on Surveyor’s report have reduced claim amount when claims are not verifiable by documentary and other evidence and because insuree had not been able to produce evidence to controvert Surveyor’s findings—It would not be fair or reasonable to reject even genuine claims of insuree which had been verified and found to be correct by Surveyor—Appellant-Insurance Company was liable to settle reduced insurance claim of Respondent-Complainant in respect of his genuine and proved loss amounting to Rs.32,79,530/-— Appellant-Insurance Company directed to settle claim. (Paras10 and 11)
Vineeta Rai, Member—This First Appeal has been filed by New India Assurance Company Ltd., Opposite Party before the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) and Appellant herein being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission which had allowed the complaint of M/s Trimurti Tablewares Ltd., Original Complainant before the State Commission and Respondent herein.
2. FACTS :
Respondent-Complainant M/s Trimurti Tablewares Ltd., a limited company, contended that it was running the business of manufacturing glass tumblers, bottles and other gift items of glass in its factory premises at Village Bhagpur, Machhiwara Road, Kohara, District Ludhiana, for which he had taken a cash credit limit of Rs.75 Lakhs and a term loan of Rs.307.50 Lakhs from Indian Overseas Bank for its building, plant, machinery and stocks etc. Respondent-Complainant got the building, plant, machinery, accessories, raw material and finished goods/products insured with Appellant/Insurance Company on 15.09.2003 for Rs.430 Lakhs, i.e. Rs.130 Lakhs for building, Rs.250 Lakhs for plant and machinery and Rs.50 Lakhs for stocks of all kinds of powder, chemical sand, LDO, RFO, LPG, raw material, packing material and other finished and unfinished goods of similar nature stored in the insured premises. Respondent-Complainant surrendered the cash credit limit and the term loan of the Indian Overseas Bank and opened a new account with State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur in December, 2003.
3. In the night intervening 6/7.6.2004 there were strong winds and storm accompanied with heavy rain which created a flood like situation in the area of the industrial unit of the Respondent-Complainant causing massive damage/loss to both the factory as also the raw and finished material making the entire unit inoperative. The matter was reported to the Appellant-Insurance Company as also State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. On receipt of this information, senior officers of both the Appellant/Insurance Company and the Bank visited the factory premises on 07.06.2004 and the Surveyor appointed by the Appellant-Insurance Company took the necessary documents in possession and also signed the books of accounts, sale book, register, purchase book, production register and the packing material register etc. and noted the damage caused to the building, plant, machinery as also material/stocks. A videographic film was also prepared. Respondent-Complainant on its own appointed a private technician-contractor M/s Nibhiulla Contractors & Technicians, who after inspecting the premises and machinery concluded that a sum of Rs.47,71,310/- was needed to repair the machinery. Two other Contractors/Fabricators appointed by the Respondent-Complainant to assess the loss caused to the building and on account of labour opined that it was to the tune of Rs.11,71,242/- and Rs.8,73,022/- respectively. Apart from this, since stocks of Quartz Power, Soda Ash, Calcite Sand, Fedopar powder etc. as also finished glass were damaged/destroyed, the loss assessed was Rs.18,15,918/- and electric fittings of Rs.98,800/- were also destroyed. The total loss in this way came to Rs.1,59,28,247/-. The Surveyor appointed by the Appellant-Insurance Company had estimated the total loss as being Rs.78,75,995/- and Surveyor had also obtained the signature of the Managing Director of the Company on the consent letter dated 09.07.2004 and he never doubted any of the documents submitted by the Respondent-Complainant. Although the Appellant-Insurance Company assured the Respondent-Complainant that the claim would be settled for the above amount within shortest possible time, they failed to do so and instead repudiated the claim vide letter dated 29.12.2004 on the plea that the Respondent-Complainant had made false and exaggerated claims by fabricating bills and thus violating the terms and conditions of the insurance policy because of which the entire claim was r
