Back
MAHARASTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Member and S.B. Sawarkar, Member
GEE SQUARE EXPORTS - Appellant
Versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ORS. - Respondents
Complaint Case No. CC/07/23
Decided on : 13-05-2013
Mrs. Agnes Martin, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. S.R. Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company was held liable for deficiency in service for not paying the damages reported by the surveyor, as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
Insurance Claim - Frozen Seafood - Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12(1)(c), Section 12(1)(d), Section 12(1)(g)] - The court analyzed the complainant's claim for damages to frozen seafood due to unprecedented floods and the insurance company's repudiation of the claim. The key legal provisions discussed were Section 12(1)(c) (deficiency in service), Section 12(1)(d) (unfair trade practice), and Section 12(1)(g) (unjust enrichment). The court found that the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the entire claim, but allowed the claim to the extent certified by the surveyor, attributing deficiency in service to the insurance company for not paying the damages reported by the surveyor.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, M/s.Gee Square Exports, filed a complaint against the insurance company for damages to frozen seafood due to unprecedented floods. The insurance company repudiated the claim, leading to a dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the entire claim, but allowed the claim to the extent certified by the surveyor, attributing deficiency in service to the insurance company for not paying the damages reported by the surveyor.
Issues: The issues before the court were whether the complainant proved the claim, whether the repudiation of the claim by the insurance company was justifiable, and what order to pass.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the evidence, including the surveyor's report, investigation agency's findings, and various certificates, and concluded that the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the entire claim. However, the court allowed the claim to the extent certified by the surveyor, attributing deficiency in service to the insurance company for not paying the damages reported by the surveyor.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the complaint, directing the insurance company to pay the actual damaged claim as proposed by the surveyor and pay it within 30 days with interest, attributing deficiency in service to the insurance company for not paying the damages reported by the surveyor.
ORDER
S.B. Sawarkar, Member - This is a complaint filed by the complainant, M/s.Gee Square Exports (hereinafter referred to as complainant company ) through its Manager and C.A., Mr. L.E. Ramaswamy. It is the complaint that the complainant company is dealing in the business of frozen sea food since 2001 and is recognized as One Star Exports House . The complainant company is storing their stock of frozen sea food in the cold storage at HMG Industries, C-21/6, TTC Industrial Area, MIDC Pawane Village, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703. The complainant company has acquired insurance from the opponent No. 1 under 'standard Fire and Special Perils' Policy bearing No. 140100/11/05/00261 for a period from 9.5.2005 to 8.5.2006 for value of Rs. 80 lacs to cover the stock of frozen sea food in the cold storage at MIDC Pawane village. The policy was expressly covering the damages to the stock which is normally in the range of Rs. 50 lac which might be caused due to any havoc. The complainant company contended that normally they had a rising stock in their cold storage and their business was also growing year-by-year during last 3 years.
2. The complainant company states that due to unprecedented flood of 26th and 27th July, 2005, the flood water entered into their cold storage and damaged the frozen see food causing a loss of 60.60 lacs which they reflected in their accounts. It is further contended that because of gushing of contaminated water of rains in the cold storage, the complainant had to dump the entire stock of sea food to prevent its endangerment to human health. Because of contamination and fear of danger to human life, the complainant could not wait for anyone and in the interest of public health, destroyed the goods immediately by dumping them.
3. The complainant company also could not inform opponents (Insurance Company) because of collapse of communication system. It, therefore, informed the Development Officer of the opponent No. 1 only on 28.7.2005 about the damage, the loss and action of dumping on 27.7.2005, but the officer expressed his helplessness to act in the absence of written communication from the complainant. Therefore, only on 29.7.2005, the complainant informed the opponent in writing about the damage due to rain water and the process followed by them.
4. The opponent No. 1 Insurance Company appointed M/s. Anil Phadke and Co. as surveyor for assessment of loss who visited the storage on 30.7.2005. He asked the complainant to stop the disposal which the complainant company followed. The complainant company was to destroy the contaminated stock which became unhygienic, but as prevented by the surveyor, few stocks were allowed to remain in the storage which was to the tune of 14.370 tonnes. It is stated that because of unprecedented rains, unexplainable and inexplicable situation of the flood, it was not possible for them to get dumping certificate from the concerned authority i.e. NMMC (Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation) as it was not the dumping in the normal conditions. Taking into consideration of the extraordinary situation, the NMMC decided to regularize the dumping done on 27th, 28th and 29th July, 2005 after due verification. The complainant accordingly applied and acquired the dumping certificate after paying requisite amount of Rs. 12,000 dated 18.10.2005 from the NMMC (The Corporation). The complainant company further states that the unprecedented conditions could be assessed through the Times of India news showing admission of NMMC City Engineer, Mr. Mohan Dagaonkar and also to the destroying of Industrial shed at Pawane. The complainant company was very much careful and before dumping the hazardous food got recommendation of veterinary doctor one Dr. S.K. Panse on 27.7.2005 and only then dumped and destroyed the stock. The complainant company further states that because of torrential rains, they could not eve
