NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member
M/s. Rawalwasis Steel Plant Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.4505 of 2009
(Against the Order dated 12/08/2009 in Appeal No. 852/2004 of the State Commission Haryana)
Decided on 7.2.2019
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Mohan Babu Agarwal, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Systematic and scientific assessment of loss made by Surveyor must be accepted by all.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Leakage in tank and furnace— Non-settlement of claim for a period of about 5 years—Respondents were directed to pay Rs.1,94,810/-, as assessed by Surveyors to Complainant alongwith 12% interest—Very systematic and scientific assessment of loss has been made by Surveyor—Respondent Insurance Company had not led any cogent evidence for not accepting Surveyor’s report and avoiding payment of claim arrived at by Surveyors—Petitioner has also not been able to produce any evidence in support of their claim—No reason to interfere with orders passed by District Forum and State Commission—Revision Petition dismissed. (Paras 8, 9 and 10)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
C. Viswanath, J.—The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in F.A. No. 852/2004 dated 12.08.2009.
2. In the Complaint case, it was stated that the Petitioner/Complainant got insured its Zinc Bath/Tank and furnace from the Respondents/Opposite Party, vide their cover note No. 752688, valid from 19.12.1994 to 18.12.1995 for Rs.7,50,000/-. The Petitioner paid Rs.14963/- towards premium for the insurance. Respondents assured to indemnify the Petitioner for the damages and losses suffered by the Petitioner. On 16.10.1995, between 4:00 to 5.00 P.M. the tank and furnace started leaking and intimation about the same was given to the Respondents, vide letter No. RSPL/95_96 DATED 17.10.1995, mentioning an estimated loss of Rs.7,50,000/-. The loss was got surveyed by the Respondents. However, the Respondents did not settle the claim amount, despite repeated requests by the Petitioner. The Respondents informed the Petitioner that the claim file had been misplaced and the Petitioner was directed to resubmit duplicate documents. In pursuance of the direction of the Respondents, the Petitioner submitted the duplicate documents on 03.11.1998. Even after the submission of the duplicate documents, the claim was not settled. On 12.02.2000, the Petitioner served a legal notice, but there was no response. Non-settlement of the claim for a period of about 5 years, without giving any valid reason, was itself a deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents. Hence, Complaint was filed by the Petitioner against the Respondents.
3. The Complaint was contested by the Respondents contending that the said matter was got investigated by Shri R.K. Singla and Shri Surinder Kumar Gupta. The Surveyors reported a loss of Rs.1,94,810/-. However, the alleged loss was due to deterioration/wearing away/wearing out of the insured tank etc. and not on account of any incident. The claim of the Petitioner on account of this loss, was not covered in view of Exception No. 5 of the Insurance Policy. Even otherwise, the Petitioner claimed to suffer a loss of Rs.7,50,000/-, but claimed only Rs.499000/- which showed that the claim was bogus and it was not understood as to why the Petitioner was not claiming the full amount of Rs.7,50,000/- and relinquished the huge part of the claim. The Complaint was, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
4. The District Forum vide order dated 03.03.2004, partly allowed the Complaint on the ground that the Petitioner had not placed on record any document to show that he suffered more loss than that assessed by the Surveyors appointed by the Insurance Company. The Respondents were directed to pay Rs.1,94,810/-, as assessed by the Surveyors to the Complainant alongwith interest @12% per annum from 17.10.1995 till its payment. There was no order as to costs and compliance of the said order was to be made within a period of two months.
5. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 12.08.2009, dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioner on the ground that after perusal of the report submitted by the Surveyors and documents placed on record it found that the Petitioner was duly compensated by the District Forum as per the Surveyors report. The District Forum had rightly granted adequate compensation to the Petitioner by passing a well-reasoned order which did not need any interference.
6. Aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission.
7. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the Respondents. The Learned Counsels argued their case on the above lines.Also carefully perused the record.
8. The Petitioner M/s. Rawalwasia