NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
M/s. Sarvottam Petrochem Private
Ltd. – Complainant
versus
M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
and Ors. – Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.123 of 2008
Decided on 21.1.2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(a)(i)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – Fire Accident – Non Settlement of Claim – Compliant has been filed for non-settlement of the insurance claim of the Complainant for more than 18 months by OP Insurance Company – Whether Insurance Company is justified in appointing third surveyor – It is the right of the Insurance Company to appoint Surveyor but such right can be exercised for valid reasons or if the report is found to be arbitrary and that Insurance Company must give cogent reasons without which it is not free to appoint the second Surveyor – In the instant case, there was one anonymous letter was received by the insurance company therefore, the view of this Commission, it was a valid reason and the Opposite Party was justified in appointing third surveyor – Compliant dismissed. [Paras 17, 18]
Result: Compliant dismissed.
ORDER
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member.—The present consumer complaint has been filed by M/s Sarvottam Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. through its director, Shri P.P. Singh (hereinafter referred to as the “Complainant/Insured”) under Section 21 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short “the Act”) against National Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Parties/Insurance Co.”) for non-settlement of the insurance claim of the Complainant for more than 18 months.
2. The Complainant M/s Sarvottam Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. was engaged in business of re-refining the used and waste oil after collecting it majorly from small vendors and few industrial houses. Its plant was at Industrial Area, Phase-II, Ghaziabad, UP. The factory had authorization from Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board to collect, treat and transport used oil. The Complainant had availed two Standard Fire and Special Peril Policies from the National Insurance Co. Ltd. at Ghaziabad (OP-3). One policy dated 15.12.2006 for insured sum of Rs.1.4 crore (Rs.50 lacs for Plant/Machinery and Rs.90 Lacs for Stocks) and another policy was purchased by the Bank of India, the banker of the Complainant for a period 12.01.2007 to 10.01.2008 for sum of Rs.1.05 Crores (Rs.80 Lacs for Plant/Machinery and Rs.25 Lacs for Stocks). The insurance co. after issuing the Policies had conducted Fire Risk Inspection of the factory through M/s Taarani Associates, the Insurance Surveyors. M/s Taarani Associates which categorically stated about the current production was about 12000 Litres per day.
3. On 18.02.2007, the factory caught fire due to bursting of boiler and caused extensive damage to the plant, its machinery along with raw materials and finished goods. It was informed to the insurance co. on 19.02.2007 which appointed the surveyor, M/s Tarani & Associate to assess the loss. However, the surveyor informed that the damages were beyond their jurisdiction and need for appointment of higher category surveyor. Subsequently, on 23.02.2007 another independent surveyor, M/s Select Surveyors (P) Ltd. was appointed by the insurance co. to assess the loss and damage caused by fire. The Complainant submitted the Claim Form along with the annexures claiming a total loss of Rs.161.77 Lacs from OP. The Complainant provided all the documents necessary for assessing the loss and as demanded by M/s Select Surveyors. The Complainant amongst other documents had also provided and submitted the Stock Registers for all king of stocks, the Stock Statements, as submitted to the Bank, Statement of Bank Accounts, Purchase Vouchers and Sale Vouchers and balance sheet. In February, 2008 the M/s Select Surveyors submitted their final survey/assessment report to the Opposite Parties. It was alleged that the Complainant was given copy of the survey/assessment report neither from the insurance co. nor from the surveyor.
Thereafter the Complainant sent several reminders to the Ops and requested to issue the Surveyor’s Report and to settle its claim at the earliest. However, to the surprise of the Complainant, one letter dated 20.06.2008 received from the Regional Office (Opposite Party-2) of the Insurance Company at New Delhi and informed about appointment of a new third surveyor M/s Atul Kapoor & Company. It was without any prior intimation to the Complainant. It was alleged that the appointment of the subsequent investigator/surveyor after a gap of more than about 15 months from date of incident was against the principles of natural justice and all norms to deny just and genuine claim of the Complainant. Being aggrieved by the non-settlement of the claim for more than 18 months due to repeated appointment of surveyors by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed the Consumer Complaint before this commission and prayed to direct the OPs to deliver the final surveyor report of M/s Select Surveyors (P) Ltd.; and to pay a sum of Rs.2,03,87,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a.
4. The Opposite Parties filed the
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.