IMPORTANT POINT
The Insurance Company did not prefer any Appeal and therefore, the finding that the repudiation was unjustified attained finality.

ORDER

M. Shreesha, Member

Aggrieved by the order dated 01.12.2008 in CC No. 22 of 2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (for short the “State Commission”), M/s Super Seeds Pvt. Ltd. preferred the present First Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”). By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the Complaint in part directing the Opposite Party, Insurance Company, to pay a sum of Rs.4,30,825/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 21.11.2006 i.e. two months after the date of the survey report dated 21.09.2006 till the date of realization and also costs of Rs.5,000/-.

2. It is seen that the Insurance Company did not prefer any Appeal and only the Complainant has preferred this Appeal seeking enhancement. It is an admitted fact that the Complainant took a Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy covering the period from 07.02.2006 to 06.02.2007 covering seeds of all kinds stocked in the warehouse. The description of risk as given in the cover note of the Policy is detailed as hereunder:—

“On the stocks of seeds or grains of all types & / or raw material & / or finished &/ or semi finished goods & / or Bardana & / or all other similar goods / products pertaining to the insurance tradeoff manufacturing of seeds whilst in loose & / or in bags &/ or in any other packing whilst stored &/ or lying in the godowns &/ or in barracks &/ or in Varandah &/ or in processing blocks &/ or anywhere in the aforesaid factory premises built of 1st Class Construction property of the insured &/ or held in com. &/ or in trust.” (Emphasis supplied)

3. While so, on 04.08.2006 sowed varieties of seeds stored were severely damaged due to rain water seepage and the same was immediately informed to the Insurance Company on 05.08.2006, making a claim of Rs.25,00,000. The Preliminary Surveyor, Mr. S. Seeta Ramaiah visited the premises on 06.08.2006 at about 6.30 p.m. and inspected the damaged stock, for a period of three days and submitted his Preliminary Report dated 10.08.2006 in which it was stated that several varieties of seeds of wheat, maize, bajra, soya bean and cotton had been damaged due to seepage of water and moisture. Learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant submitted that it was only on suggestion of the Preliminary Surveyor that the unaffected stocks were moved to a safer dry place and, therefore, the Complainant opened several sachets, especially of cotton seeds to ascertain as to which of the packs were not damaged. It was observed that due to the moisture content, almost the entire cotton seeds stocks was damaged. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the observations made by the Preliminary Surveyor which is reproduced as hereunder:—

“I physically verified the damaged items at random and advised them to shift the unaffected stocks to safer place. They have not shifted the unaffected stock up to my last visit on 8.8.2006. Hence I am unable to take inventory of affected stocks thoroughly. I opine that if they have shifted the unaffected stocks to safer place immediately as advised by me the further loss will not be there......”

Learned Counsel submitted that the stock in go-down matched with the Stock Register.

4. On 21.09.2006, the Insurance Company appointed one M/s Integral Assessors as the Final Surveyor who submitted the Survey Report and assessed the loss at a meagre sum of Rs.3,91,797/-. Learned Counsel vehemently contended that this valuation was based on surmises without any reference to the quality of the seeds which were stored for the purpose of growing hybrid plant varieties. He further contended that after two months from the date of preparation of the Survey Report, the Insurance Company obtained a legal opinion from their advocate who clearly opined that the cause of the loss was definitely ‘Inundation’ which was covered by the Insu