Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Member
M/s. Supriya Spinning Mills Private Limited —Complainant
versus
M/s. United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. and Anr. —Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.345 of 2013
Decided on 9.2.2022
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21(1)(a)(i) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – Insurance – Fire Accident – Repudiation of Claim – Complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party in non settlement of Claim – whether there was violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy – In the Complaint, the Complainant has not mentioned the date when the intimation was given to the Opposite Parties. Similarly, the Opposite Parties have also not mentioned the date when they were given intimation of the fire incident. The fire occurred on 27.12.2011 and the Surveyor inspected the premises on 29.12.2011 i.e. after two days of the incident. It is, therefore, clear that before 29.12.2011, when the Opposite Parties deputed a Surveyor, there was intimation with the Opposite Parties. There was, thus, no violation of Clause 6 of the terms & conditions of the Policy. [Para 10].
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21(1)(a)(i) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – Insurance – Fire Accident – Repudiation of Claim – Whether Complainant could establish the cause of fire – From the Final Report submitted by the Police as well as the Survey report, it is established that the fire occurred due to exhaust of red hot carbon spark emanated from the truck. Surveyor had also observed that the “negligent smoking by the labour force also ruled out as no labour is close by the time unloading the cotton kapas.” The argument of the Opposite Parties that the Complainant failed to establish the cause of fire is, therefore, rejected. [Para 11].
(C) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21(1)(a)(i) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – Insurance – Fire Accident – Whether Surveyor has rightly assessed the valuation of Stock – The Surveyor had done weighment of the salvage and on the basis of the weighment it was observed that the good quantity retrieved was 331800 kgs – The Surveyor had made the assessment on the basis of record. Surveyor had specifically mentioned that “Cotton lint received after ginning (as per records) 520374 kgs.” The allegation of the Complainant that the Surveyor had wrongly arrived at the figure of 520374 kgs. has no force – Further, Surveyor Report is an important piece of evidence and it has to be given due weight, though it is not sacrosanct, and it can be displaced by leading a cogent evidence. In the present case, the Complainant did not lead any evidence to disprove the report submitted by the Surveyor. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the report submitted by the Surveyor is to be accepted – Complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.28,36,124/- towards claim of the Complainant alongwith compensation in the form of simple interest @ 9% p.a. with effect from the date of repudiation of the claim till realization, within eight weeks from the date of pronouncement of this order. [Paras 14 to 16].
Result: Complaint allowed.
ORDER
1. The present Complaint is filed under Section 21 (a) (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The Complainant is a Private Limited Company engaged in cotton business since 2005. One of the stock points of the Complainant is situated at M/s Vijaya Chaitanya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Dhulipalla Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District, A.P. The Complainant got insured its stock vide following Insurance Policies: -
| Sl. No. | Policy Number | Period | Sum Assured | Perils Covered |
| 1 | 2011/15080111111100000747 | 14-11-2011 to 13-01-2012 | 2,00,00,000 | Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy with add on cover earthquake (Fire and Stock) |
| 2 | 2011/15080111111100000805 | 30-11-2011 to 29-01-2012 | 4,00,00,000 | Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy |
|
| Total Sum Assured |
| 6,00,00,000 |
|
3. The case of Complainant is that on 27.12.2011, at about 5:00 PM, a fire broke out at M/s Vijaya Chaitanya Enterprises Private Limited near the Kappas heaps and damaged the entire stock. The cause of fire was “sparks emanating from the silencer pipe or lorry exhaust accidentally, the lorry was returning after unloading stocks at that moment of fire”. Fire Brigade personnel took 3 hours and 29 minutes to extinguish the fire. The incident was reported to the Police, Insurance Company and the concerned authorities. On 30.12.2011, the Complainant also lodged FIR No.158/2011 at Sattenapalli Police Station. Fire Service Attendant Certificate in FC.No.74/2011-2012, dated 29.02.2012, was issued by the Station Fire House Officer, APDR & Fire Services Department, Sattenapalli stating that the fire was extinguished in 3 hours 29 minutes. On the date of incident, 5776.13 Quintals of Cotton Kappas worth Rs.2,33,24,013/- and 1349.80 Quintals of Cotton Lint (794 Fully Pressed Bales of 170 Kg. each) worth Rs.1,36,64,025/- totalling Rs.3,69,88,038/- were lying in the premises of M/s Vijaya Chaitanya Enterprises Private Limited. The Opposite Party appointed Mr. M. Purnachandra Rao Guntur as Surveyor to estimate the loss. The demolished kappas was removed from the site seeking prior approval of the Opposite Party. The Surveyor advised the Complainant to dry and gin the damaged Kappas and sell the gin cotton and cotton seeds. He also promised the Complainant that they would reimburse the loss, if any, after the sale of ginned cotton and cotton seed.
4. On 14.02.2012, the Complainant submitted the claim for Rs.1,26,00,000/-. Though the Complainant submitted all the documents claimed by the Surveyor, the claim was not settled by the Opposite Parties. The Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.28,36,124/-. The Surveyor orally insisted the Complainant to accept an amount of Rs.29,00,000/- in full and final settlement of the claim. The Complainant refused to accept this amount. In spite of repeated requests, the Opposite Party did not settle the claim of the Complainant. On 04.02.2013, the Complainant sent a legal notice to the Opposite Party but in vain. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant filed the present Complaint seeking following relief:-
“1. to pay insurance claim amount of Rs.1,26,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 27-12-2011 till the date of realization;
2. to pay Compensation of Rs.5.00,000/-;
3. to pay costs of Rs.50,000/-;
and pass such other order or orders which the Hon’ble Commission deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.”
5. The Complaint was resisted by the Opposite Party by filing Written Statement alleging that the fire was caused due to the negligence of the Complainant. The Complainant wanted to get benefit of his own mistake and the Opposite Party was not liable to pay any claim. As per the final report submitted by the Sub-Inspector dated 26.03.2012, there could be two probabilities of the fire accident. The sparks emanated from the sil
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
