Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
J. M. Malik, Presiding Member, Dr. S. M. Kantikar, Member
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. —Appellants
versus
East Indian Produce Limited & Ors. —Respondents
First Appeal No.240 of 2010
(From order dated 12.04.2010 in S. C. Case No. CC/2008/02 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata) With IA/1/2010 (For Stay) & IA/2/2010 (For Condonation of delay)
Decided on 9.12.2014
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. H. Banerjee, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Surveyor’s report has significant evidentiary value unless it is proved otherwise.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Tea Crop Policy—Theft of tea bags—State Commission by majority judgment, allowed complaint partly and directed OPs to pay amount of Rs.22,00,400/- alongwith 8% interest by way of compensation—There was pilferage and theft of substantial quantities of green leaves tea and ‘made tea’ before temporary closure of factory—Report given by Surveyor carries enough value—This is a vital piece of evidence—There is no allegation against Surveyor—He appears to be guileless and there is no reason to discard his report—Surveyor’s report has significant evidentiary value unless it is proved otherwise which complainants have failed to do so—Majority order of State Commission set aside and order passed by Single Bench confirmed and complaint partly allowed to the extent mentioned by Single Member. (Paras 6, 11 to 15)
Result: Appeal allowed.
J. M. Malik, Presiding Member—There is delay of 61 days’ in filing the First Appeal, by the insurance company, for which an application for condonation of delay has been filed. For the reasons stated in the said application, the delay is hereby condoned.
2. The respondents/complainants above-named, obtained policies from the United India Insurance Company, Appellant No.1/Opposite Party No.1 and Appellant Nos.2 & 3/Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3, its functionaries. The Tea Crop Policy and other policies covered theft of tea and all other things, such as, factory, plant, machineries with accessories, building structures, furniture, fixtures and fittings.
3. During the subsistence of these policies, the complainants declared ‘suspension of the work’ of Tea Estates and requisite notices were issued to the labourers and one copy of the same was also sent to the Insurer. The disputes by Management were settled on 20.03.2006. At the time of re-opening, the complainants apprehending theft and damages, intimated the insurance company with a request to depute a Surveyor to conduct a joint Survey on the date of opening to assess the loss of damage, if any.
4. Sh. Indranil Bhattacharjee, was appointed as a Surveyor. There was theft, including ‘made tea’, of about 11002 kgs. He submitted joint inspection report, on 27.03.2006, after inspection. According to the complainants that report is not correct.
5. On 28.03.2006, the Manager of the Tea Garden lodged an FIR with the Pulbazar Police Station, informing the loss and damage due to theft of plant and machineries and other articles, in question. On 30.03.2006, the complainant requested the insurance company to pay compensation towards loss and damage due to theft in the Tea Garden. Sh. Bhattacharjee had not investigated the case as per the FIR, lodged. Subsequently, he again visited the spot. He also found that the police was not acting in accordance with law. The Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.94,250/- towards the loss of plant and machinery and assessed Rs.57,290/- towards the loss of residential building but no loss was assessed for 11002 kgs of ‘made tea’. The total value of the tea was calculated at Rs.200/- per kg and total claim of Rs.23,51,940/- was made before the State Commission. When it refused to pay the same, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, wherein a sum of Rs. 23,51,940/- towards loss of damage to ‘made tea’, due to theft, along with interest @ 18% p. a., and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental harassment and agony was filed.
6. The OPs/respondents have contested this case. The State Commission by a majority decision allowed the complaint partly and directed the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.22,00,400/- within a period of sixty days from the date of the said order, along with interest @ 8% p. a., by way of compensation.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Counsel for the complainants/ respondents vehemently argued that the reasons given by the Majority Judgment are valid and it rightly rejected the Surveyor’s report. He contended that in the closing letter, it was not written that there was a theft. He admitted that in the FIR there was no mention of theft of 11002 kgs of ‘made tea’. He further admitted that the Appellants/Opposite parties had cited a number of authorities before the State Commission, but the State Commission held, as under :-
“On behalf of the respondents reference has been made to judgments in the case of Vikram Greentech India Ltd Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.; 2009 (5) SCC 599 Birdi Chand Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2008) 1 CPJ 111; National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Aleyamma Verghese, 2006 (2) CPJ 193, Mastana Jogi International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2009 (4) CPJ 262 and Champalal Verma Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2008 (3) CPJ 93. But in view of the findings on fact recorded hereinabove, further discussion on the said law is not required”.
8. All these findings appear to be leg
