Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member
Taken up through video conferencing
M/s. Shivam Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
versus
United India Insurance Co. – Respondent
First Appeal No.588 of 2012
(Against the Order dated 30/05/2012 in Complaint No.17/2006 of the State Commission Punjab)
Decided on 22.3.2021
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Jatin Rana, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. Sayma Firoz, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
“Survey and Investigation by an Insurance Company are fundamental in determining the amount payable to the insured.”
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 19 and 2(1)(g) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 41 and 2(11)] – Insurance – Loss by fire – Scope of claim for – A five took place in the premises of the factory on 8.9.2003 and its stocks, plant, machinery and building of the factory were damaged – Insurance company settled the claim at Rs. 17,42,620/- as per the loss assessed and recommended by Technical expert – However, Surveyor assessed the not loss at Rs. 45,93,508/- – State Commission directed the Insurance Company to settle the claim as per the net loss assessed by its Surveyor – Challenge against – Survey or investigation cannot be disregarded or dismissed without cogent reasons – Surveyor has considered the relevant facts and circumstances, documents and material, made its assessment, under different heads, recorded its reasons and assessed the net loss at Rs. 45,93,508/- – Onus of establishing errors or omissions in the Surveyor’s report was on the complainant company, which onus it has failed to discharge – No reason found to enhance the amount payable to complainant company – State Commission had rightly gone with Surveyor’s report – No jurisdictional error found – Interference with impugned award declined.
Held: Survey and Investigation by an insurance company are fundamental in determining the amount payable to the insured. Survey or Investigation cannot be disregarded or dismissed without cogent reasons (it, but, also goes concomitantly that the rationale recorded in the Survey or Investigation should be convincing and pass credence in scrutiny).
The State Commission, making its appraisal, for reasons recorded, has gone with the Surveyor’s report. No jurisdictional error, or legal principle ignored, or mis-appreciation of evidence, is visible. The Award made by the State Commission appears just and equitable in the given facts and situation of the case.
The Surveyor has considered the relevant facts and circumstances, documents and material, made its assessment under different heads, recorded its reasons, and assessed the net loss at Rs. 45,93,508/-. The onus of establishing errors or omissions in the Surveyor’s report was on the Complainant Co., which onus it has failed to discharge. There is no reason evident to in any manner enhance the amount payable to the Complainant Co., over and above the net loss assessed by the Surveyor (as found apt by the State Commission, and as implicitly
agreed to by the Insurance Co. by not agitating the State Commission’s Order). Nothing further survives in the matter, it requires to be closed.
The Appeal, being totally ill-conceived and entirely bereft of merit, is dismissed. (Paras 8 to 11)
Result: Appeal Dismissed.
ORDER
Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member.—This Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, challenging the Order dated 30.05.2012 in C. C. No. 17 of 2006 passed by The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’.
The Appellant, M/s Shivam Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., was the Complainant before the State Commission, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Complainant Co.’.
The Respondent, United India Insurance Co., was the Opposite Party before the State Commission, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Insurance Co.’.
2. Heard arguments from learned Counsel for the Complainant Co. and for the Insurance Co. Perused the material on record including inter alia the impugned Order dated 30.05.2012 of the State Commission and the Memorandum of Appeal.
3. The Complainant Co., engaged in the business of producing Organic Solvent and Thinner at Village Balian, District Sangrur, took two insurance policies, one for its plant and machinery, including generator set, electronic installations, laboratory equipment and underground storage tank, transformer, furniture & fixtures and fittings etc. from 26.06.2003 to 25.06.2004 for sum insured of Rs. 1.27 crore by paying premium of Rs. 43,891/-, and the second for its stocks of Naphtha, Benzene, Tolvena, MTO, Sulphus and other solvents as well as finished and unfinished stocks, from 25.07.2003 to 24.07.2004 by paying premium of Rs. 39,744/-. A fire took place in the premises of the factory on 08.09.2003 and its stocks, plant, machinery and building of the factory were damaged. Information of the fire was given to the Insurance Co. on 08.09.2003 and to the Police on 09.09.2003. The stocks lying in the premises of the factory were under the control of the Central Excise Department, information was also given to the Excise Department on 09.09.2003.
4. The Complainant Co. furnished details of Rs. 1,06,67,684/- to the Surveyor & Loss Assessor (S. Soni & Co.) appointed by the Insurance Co. The Surveyor assessed the net loss at Rs. 45,93,508/- (including excise duty). The technical expert (Er. O.N. Chhabra) appointed by the Insurance Company to examine the record and make its recommendation assessed the loss at Rs. 17,42,620/-. The Insurance Co. settled the claim at Rs. 17,42,620/-, as per the loss assessed and recommendation made by its technical expert.
5. The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 30.05.2012 ordered the Insurance Co. to settle the claim as per the net loss assessed by its Surveyor, and to pay the balance amount, after deducting the amount already paid, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from after one month of the submission of the report by its Surveyor, with cost of the litigation of Rs. 25,000/-.
6. The Insurance Co. has not agitated the Order of the State Commission.
7. The Complainant Co. has made the following prayer in its Memorandum of Appeal:
a) Set aside impugned order dated 30/05/2012, passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Dakshin Marg, Sector 37-A, Chandigarh in consumer complaint no. 17 of 2006.
b) Award cost in favour of the Appellant.
c) Award any other relief, which the Hon’ble National Commission may deem fit and proper.
Notwithstanding the articulation of its prayer clause, the Complainant Co. has been heard on the question of awarding the balance amount of its claim over and above the amount assessed by the Surveyor (and awarded by the State Commission).
8. Survey and Investigation by an insurance company are fundamental in determining the amount payable to the insured. Survey or Investigation cannot be disregarded or dismissed without cogent reasons (it, but, also goes concomitantly that the rationale recorded in the Survey or Investigation should be convincing and pass credence in scrutiny).
9. The State Commission, making its appraisal, for reasons recorded, has gone
