Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member and
C. Viswanath, Member
M/s A.I. Champdany
Industries Ltd. —Complainant
versus
M/s New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. and Ors. —Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.450 of 2013
Decided on 23.10.2019
For the Complainant:Mr. Srijan Nayak and Mr. Vikas Nautiyal, Advocates
For the Opp. Parties:Mr. Vishnu Mehra and Mr. Anant Narain Mehrotra, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Discrepancy in accounting, if any, would need to be looked into by concerned financial regulators/authorities and cannot be a ground to repudiate claim of insured.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(d) – Insurance – Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy – Damage caused to goods due to fire accident – Claim of Complainant repudiated by Opposite Parties on the ground that alleged loss in reference is not reflected in books of account – Surveyor after inspection reported that fire took place all of a sudden, was accidental in nature and beyond control of management and insured suffered loss of stocks – Insurance Policy is taken for reimbursement or for indemnity of loss which may be suffered on account of insured perils, services of insurer cannot be said to have been hired or availed for a commercial purpose – National Commission does possess requisite jurisdiction to entertain a Consumer Complaint wherever a defect or deficiency in services rendered by an insurer is made out – Complaint held to be maintainable – Discrepancy in accounting, if any, would need to be looked into by concerned financial regulators/authorities and cannot be a ground to repudiate claim of insured – Complainant suffered huge loss on account of devastating fire – Reason mentioned for repudiating claim was beyond scope of contract – Grounds of repudiation of claim do not relate to any terms and conditions of Policy – Loss as assessed by Surveyor, as genuinely suffered by insured, needs to be fully compensated and cannot be denied on unrelated considerations – Opposite Party directed to pay sum of Rs.46,60,925/- (as assessed by surveyor) towards claim of Complainant alongwith compensation in form of 9% simple interest. (Paras 6 to 10)
Result: Complaint Partly allowed.
ORDER
C. Viswanath, Member—According to the Complainant, he took a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy No. 510700/11/09/11/00007701 with add on coverage for Earthquake (Fire & Shock) in respect of Building Shed and Godowns, Plant & Machinery, Electrical Installations, Store Materials, generator sets including fittings, diesel oil in barrel, stock of paint etc. at the Complainant’s factory at Konnagar, Hooghly-712235. The policy coverage was from 29.01.2010 to 28.01.2011. The Opposite Parties demanded Rs.2,55,771/- towards insurance premium, including service taxes which was duly paid by the Complainant by cheque. The Complainant advised the Opposite Parties, vide letter dated 08.12.2010, to enhance the total sum insured from Rs.10,42,67,000/- to Rs.11,47,67,000/- by altering the insured amount against item no. 6(a), 6(c) and 6(e) and the Complainant paid an additional premium of Rs.3,641/- by cheque. On 14th December, 2010 at about 9:05 p.m., fire occurred at the Lean-to-shed which extended to the front side of the adjacent Finished Goods Godown located within the Konnagar Factory of the Complainant. As a result, huge quantity of jute goods kept in “Lean to Shed” as well as entangled jute thread waste lying in front of Finished Goods Go-down were totally burnt, besides damage to the Lean-to-Shed. The Complainant took all reasonable steps to minimize the consequential damage and loss. On 15.12.2010, the incident of fire was brought to the notice of Kanaipur Beat House under Uttarpara Police Station and a Complaint was registered under GDE No. 239 dated 15.12.2010. The Complainant informed Opposite Party No.3,vide letter dated 15.12.2010, about the said incident of fire with estimated figure of consequential loss, which was duly received. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties appointed one Sri Dilip Kumar Saha, Insurance Surveyor to conduct survey and assess the loss. Sri Saha visited the Complainant’s factory at Konnagar, along with an executive of the Opposite Parties on 16th December, 2010 and carried out joint inspection of the affected properties and made a joint inspection note. The Surveyor also visited the factory as and when required in connection with the assessment of loss and the Complainant furnished all information, documents and records as required by the Surveyor from time to time. The claim form was issued by the Opposite Parties through the surveyor and the Complainant submitted the form duly filled to the surveyor, claiming an estimated loss of Rs.1,48,94,993/-. The Surveyor in his report clearly and categorically confirmed the incident of accidental fire at the Complainant’s Konnagar factory. The report reads, “on the basis of the foregoing facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the fire took place all of a sudden and it was beyond control of the management and accidental in nature as transpired from our in depth examination of the cause of fire and its consequences thereof. Insured has suffered loss to its stock and other assets as elaborated here-in-before”.
2. However, the claim of the Complainant was repudiated by the Opposite Parties, vide letter dated 04.01.2012, on the ground that :
“The alleged loss in reference is not reflected in your books of account as such being a public exchequer we cannot consider an unaccounted alleged loss”. The Complainant, vide letter dated 09.02.2012, objected to the repudiation of the claim for reimbursement on flimsy grounds and requested the Opposite Parties to reconsider its decision and settle the claim. Through the same letter, Complainant further requested the Opposite Parties for a copy of the survey report. The contention of the Opposite Party that the claimed amount was not reflected in the Books of Accounts cannot be a factor for denying his claim. If there was any alleged violation of the statutory rules by the insured of submitting proper income tax return, the Insurance Company cannot take the plea against a genuine claim. The Insurance Company
