SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL COMMISSION DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Anup K Thakur, Presiding Member and C. Viswanath, Member
M/s. Shivram Chandra Jagarnath
Cold Storage and Anr. —Complainants
versus
New India Assurance Co. and Ors. —Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.37 of 2010
Decided on 14.8.2018

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants:Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties:Mr. S.M. Tripathi, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
When the insured is at fault in maintaining the cold storage properly, insurance company cannot be made liable to pay compensation for the loss caused to the insured.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21—Complainant, a partnership firm has a Cold Storage with a total capacity of storing 53989.40 quintals of potatoes—In 2008, O.P. 1, has issued two assurance policies, for deterioration of stock of potato policy for the period from 04.04.2008 till 03.11.2008 and another Policy Machine Break Down policy for the period from 03.04.2008 to 04.04.2009—On 13.10.2008, surveyor surveyed the stock at the request of the complaint and found that 30,000 Quintals of potatoes were rotten and sprouting was also noticed—The complainant submitted bills for payment under the MBD Policy towards breakdown of compressors and on 30.12.2008, the O.P. paid an amount of Rs.28,128/- under the Machinery Breakdown Policy—The Complainant lodged a claim of Rs.1,35,63,144.65/- for the loss of 24,660.263 quintals of potato under the DOS policy with the O.P.—Surveyor in his report also mentioned that the loss assessed to potato stock(24,660.263 quintals) was Rs.98,64,105/- claim was repudiated by the O.P. on the ground that the reasons were not mentioned for spoiling of the stock—The Complainant therefore filed the present consumer complaint for a sum of Rs.1,35,63,144.65/-, with future and pendentilite interest @18% p.a. and costs—Heard the counsels, perused the documents and the survey reports—The surveyor has given a very detailed report attributing the loss is due to improper maintenance of the cold storage and gross negligence on the part of the Complainant and hence the Insurance Company therefore justified in repudiating the claim under DOS Insurance Policy—Hence, the complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

       Result: Complaint dismissed without costs.

       

ORDER

C. Viswanath, Member—Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

M/s. Shivram Chandra Jagarnath is a registered partnership firm, with Mr. Surendra Singh as the Managing Partner. Shivram Chandra Jagarnath Cold Storage has a total capacity of 53989.40 quintals of potatoes. In 2008, Opposite Party No. 1, the New India Assurance Company has issued two assurance policies, Policy No. 420705/44/08/54/30000002 for deterioration of stock of potato policy from 04.04.2008 till 03.11.2008 (in short hereinafter referred to as ‘DOS’) and another Policy No. 420705/44/08/30000001, Machine Break Down policy from 03.04.2008 to 04.04.2009 (in short hereinafter referred to as “MBD”) to the Complainant.

On 13.10.2008, the Complainant requested the OP Insurance Company for inspection of the stock of potatoes insured with them as rot and sprouting was noticed in about 30,000 quintal of potatoes. On 10.11.2008, the Complainant forwarded bills and quotations of Rs.46,921.50/- to the OP Insurance Company for payment under the MBD Policy towards breakdown of compressors. On 30.12.2008, the OP Insurance Company paid an amount of Rs.28,128/- to the Complainant towards the settlement of claim under the Machinery Breakdown Policy for breakdown/repair of machinery installed in the cold storage. The Complainant after assessing the actual loss caused to the stock of potatoes in the cold storage, lodged a claim of Rs.1,35,63,144.65/- for the loss of 24,660.263 quintals of potato under the DOS policy with the OP Insurance Company.

The learned counsel for the Complainant contended that the OP Insurer failed to appreciate that the temperature recorded in the log-sheet was lower than the actual temperature. It is submitted that for most of the year, the cold storage was running properly. However, in the month of September and October, 2008 (more particularly on 19.9.08, 5.10.08, 9.10.08) the 100 HP motors, KC4 Cylinder compressor and exhaust fans stopped working and got defective, leading to increase in temperature inside the cooling chambers, which was not correctly recorded by the staff maintaining the temperature log-sheet. The said staff was immediately removed from the services of the cold storage. The defects of the aforesaid machinery were rectified at the earliest and the same was also duly informed to the OP Insurer. The reimbursement of the cost incurred by the Complainants towards repair of such machinery was claimed and the claim was settled by the OP Insurer under the MBD Policy.

Er. Anil K. Pandey, Surveyor, Loss Assessor was appointed to carry out inspection of stock of potatoes. He submitted his preliminary report on 16.10.08. However, the OP Insurer failed to take into consideration the survey report. The Surveyor has opined that the damage to stock was due to deficiency of the cooling system of CH-II.

The Surveyor, Mr. M.S. Khamesra in his Survey Report has admitted the loss of 24660.263 Qtls. of potato due to sprouting and rotting and assessed the loss of potato to the tune of Rs.98,64,105/-. The Surveyor in his report has also recorded that :-

“a. In my opinion the sprouting could have taken place only due to higher humidity & temperature in the chamber...there seems to be no other cause for sprouting.

b. Against a licensed capacity of 53989.4 qtls 53454.15 Qtls of potato were loaded.

c. Turning of bags was carried out between 21.5 & 28.5, 25.6 & 15.7 in chamber no. 1 & between 29.5 & 22.6, 16.7 & 8.8.2008 in chamber no. 2. – as informed”

Once the cause of loss has been attributed by the Surveyor to higher temperature, merely because the staff has wrongly noted the readings in the log-sheet, does not entitle the Surveyor and OP Insurer to repudiate the claim of the Complainants on frivolous ground.

The OP Insurer failed to appreciate that the pre-assurance survey mentions that the building, plant & machinery were properly maintained and were in good shape. Further, it is a well-known fact that the only reason for sprouting and rotting of potato is







































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top