Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President and Dinesh Singh, Member
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. —Appellant
Versus
M/s. Strutech Computers
and Ors. —Respondents
First Appeal No.579 of 2012
(Against the Order dated 17/08/2012 in Complaint No. 72/2011 of the State Commission Chandigarh)
Decided on 3.1.2020
For the Appellant:Ms. Rekha Aggarwal and Mr. Pankaj Changothia, Advocates
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Kapil Chawla, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2: Ex parte
For the Respondent No.3: Ex parte
IMPORTANT POINT
1. Survey, based on Investigation, cannot be disregarded or dismissed without cogent reasons.
2. An insurance company cannot sit indefinitely on deciding a claim, it has to make its decision within a reasonable time-period.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 – Appeal – Insurance policy – Burglary was committed in shop – Investigator did not question the incident of burglary – Survey, based on Investigation, cannot be disregarded or dismissed without cogent reasons – Prices of computers and laptops and other electronic accessories items maintain a descending trend – Surveyor has taken the loss reported to the Police with the F.I.R. – Electronic items become obsolete very fast – An insurance company cannot sit indefinitely on deciding a claim, it has to make its decision within a reasonable time-period – Report of surveyor can not be disputed – Rate of interest of 9% per annum is fair – Held that, reasoned report of surveyor should not be disregarded without any reason. [Paras 6, 13, 16, 19, 23 and 24]
Result: Appeal disposed of.
ORDER
Dinesh Singh, Member—This Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, impugning the Order dated 17.08.2012 in C.C. No. 72 of 2011 passed by The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. of Chandigarh, hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’.
2. The Complainant before the State Commission, M/s Strutech Computers, is the Respondent No. 1 herein, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Complainant Firm’.
The Opposite Parties No. 1 and No. 2 before the State Commission, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., is the Appellant herein, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Insurance Co.’.
The Opposite Party No. 3 before the State Commission, Consolidated Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., is the Respondent No. 2 herein, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Surveyor’.
The Opposite Party No. 4 before the State Commission, Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Investigator, is the Respondent No. 3 herein, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Investigator’.
3. The Appeal has been filed within limitation.
4. Vide Order dated 28.03.2016, the Surveyor and the Investigator were proceeded against ex parte.
5. We heard the learned Counsel for the Insurance Co. and the Complainant Firm, and perused the entire material on record, including inter alia specifically the impugned Order dated 17.08.2012 of the State Commission and the Surveyor’s report dated 23.12.2010.
6. The facts, succinctly put, are that the Complainant Firm is in the business of computers and allied products. It took insurance for its stocks in trade at its premises at Panchkula, Haryana for Rs. 40 lakh. It paid the premium of Rs. 4,412/- on 11.06.2009. The policy was valid from 28.06.2009 to 27.06.2010. Burglary was committed at its said premises on 20/21.11.2009. An F.I.R. was registered on 21.11.2009 under Sections 457 (Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment) and 380 (Theft in dwelling house, etc.) of the I.P.C. A list of stolen items worth Rs.27,14,052/- was appended with the report made with the Police. The Insurance Co. was telephonically intimated of the burglary on 22.11.2009, followed by a written communication on 24.11.2009. A claim for Rs.27,14,000/- was lodged with the Insurance Co. The Insurance Co. approved the claim for Rs.9,20,052/- and made payment of the said amount vide a cheque dated 28.06.2011. Aggrieved with the partial approval of its claim, the Complainant Firm filed a Complaint before the State Commission on 25.10.2011. The State Commission partly allowed the Complaint vide its Order dated 17.08.2012. Aggrieved therewith, the Insurance Co. filed the instant Appeal before this Commission.
7. In its Award made vide para 23 of its Order dated 17.08.2012, the State Commission has directed the Insurance Co.:
[a] (i) to pay a sum of Rs.15,56,323/- i.e. Rs.24,76,375/- (Total Value of Stolen Items assessed by the Surveyor) minus Rs.9,20,052/- (the amount already paid vide cheque dated 28.06.2011);
(ii) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on Rs.15,56,323/- (the residual amount) from 30.09.2010 (six months after the date of supplying all requisite documents by the Complainant Firm to the Insurance Co.) till its realisation and on Rs.9,20,052/- (the amount already paid on 28.06.2011) from 30.09.2010 (six months after the date of supplying all requisite documents by the Complainant Firm to the Insurance Co.) till 28.06.2011 (the date of payment); and
(iii) Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation.
[b] to pay penal interest at the rate of 12% per annum if payments at [a] (i) & (ii) are not made within 45 days of receipt of a certified copy of its Order.
8. Apart from its insured premises at (i) Panchkula, Haryana, the Complainant Firm also has two other premises situated at (ii) Manimajra, Chandigarh and
