Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Member
M/s. Hemkunt Coated Paper Pvt. Ltd. —Complainant
versus
M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors. —Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.441 of 2013
Decided on 4.2.2022
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21(1)(a)(i) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – Insurance – Fire Accident – Compliant has been filed for alleged repudiation of Claim by Insurance Company – Whether Complainant is maintainable on the ground that the Complainant is a Company involved in commercial activities – A contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity and, therefore, there is no question of commercial purpose in obtaining insurance coverage. [Para 15].
Held: The Complainant took Insurance Policy from Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.3,36,50,000/-. Complainant also took Insurance Policy from Opposite Party No.2 for Rs.3,32,60,000/-. Complainant filed Insurance Claim of Rs.1,82,88,829/-. In the prayer clause of the Complaint, the Complainant has claimed an amount of 1,82,88,829/- with interest @ 24% alongwith compensation of Rs.10 lakhs and litigation cost of Rs.1,10,000/-. As the total amount claimed in the Complaint exceeds Rs.1 crore, the Complaint is maintainable. [Para 16].
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21(1)(a)(i) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – Insurance – Fire Accident – Whether Surveyor ought to have adopted Stock Records Method – Complainant was not maintaining any stock records for consumable stores, the Surveyor had adopted the Stock Records Method, The allegation of the Complainant that the Surveyor should not have adopted the Stock Records Method is, therefore, rejected – Also, The Surveyor has given reasons for adopting the “Stock Records Method.” Surveyor had recorded that “Insured is not maintaining any stock records for Consumable stores, so we have considered the stock records for waste paper only for assessment of loss based on stock records method and the loss for the Consumable stores has been considered on the basis of physical verification basis only.” [Para 25].
(C) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21(1)(a)(i) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – Insurance – Fire Accident – Quantification of Loss by Surveyor – Whether loss was properly assessed by Surveyor – Surveyor appointed by Opposite Party No.2 assessed the loss at Rs.49,32,536/-. However, since the Complainant had doubled the insurance, the Surveyor appointed by Opposite Party No.1 fixed the liability of Opposite Party No.2 at Rs.24,37,400/- – The independent Surveyors appointed by the Opposite Parties separately had assessed almost the same amount – Also, Surveyors visited the factory premises and inspected the place of incident and thereafter gave separate reports. Report submitted by a Surveyor is an important piece of evidence and it has to be given due weight, provided there is cogent evidence – In the present case, the loss was assessed separately by the Surveyors appointed by Opposite Parties Nos. 1 & 2 respectively – The Complainant did not lead any evidence disproving the report submitted by the Surveyors. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the reports submitted by the Surveyors of the Insurance Companies are accepted – Therefore, the loss by the fire was properly assessed and indemnified by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant has already received the amount of loss assessed by the Opposite Parties. The Complaint is devoid of merit and is dismissed. [Paras 26 to 28].
Result: Compliant dismissed.
ORDER
1. The present case is filed under Section 21(a) (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The Complainant is a manufacturer of Kraft Paper and Grey Board and used to purchase the raw material such as corrugated boxes and waste paper locally in India and imported from U.S.A. The Complainant took Insurance Policy No.360201/11/09/11/00000148 from Opposite Party No.1 for an amount of Rs.3,36,50,000/-. Complainant also took Insurance Policy No.401600/11/ 09/3100000232 from Opposite Party No.2 for an amount of Rs.3,32,60,000/-, covering the risk of stock, plant & machinery, furniture, building, etc. and paper and carboard mills (including lamination) respectively. Both Policies were valid from 29.06.2009 to 28.06.2010.
3. The case of the Complainant is that on 28.05.2010 between 1.00 pm and 1:30 pm during weekly power shutdown, fire broke damaging the waste paper (raw material) lying in the open yard/go-down of the Complainant. Due to the power shut, no work was going on and only few staff members were present in the factory. Some of the neighbouring farmers and villagers noticed the fire incident and intimated the fire station and the Complainant. The fire burnt all the waste paper, finished sheets and bundle reels. Mr. Gurbir Singh, the Director of the Complainant, reached the spot of incident within 15-20 minutes and noticed that two fire brigades were trying to control fire, which spread due to the wind and damaged the raw material completely. The fire continued all night and could only be controlled at around 2 pm on the next day.
4. On 28.05.2010, Opposite Party No.1 deputed M/s Rajesh Mahajan & Co. to conduct the Preliminary Survey. He recorded loss to major portion of stocks lying in the open due to fire. The stock also got damaged due to soaking of water, blackening by soot and smoke deposit. The cause of the fire could be due to spark travelling from the neighbouring factory, where the employees burnt its waste. The Preliminary Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.50 lakhs. Opposite Party No.1 deputed M/s Soni & Co. as Surveyors to investigate and assess the loss. The Surveyor carried out a detailed investigation of accounts as well as the sale made by the Complainant. The Complainant provided documents pertaining to the Bank Accounts, invoices relating to the purchases made during the relevant period along with the stock ledger accounts. On 23.05.2012, the Complainant sent separate letters to the Opposite Parties intimating that the Complainant had received collective amount of Rs.50 Lakhs from the Opposite Parties and asked the Opposite Parties to provide the basis of settlement of claim and registered a protest for non-acceptance of the settlement. On 11.12.2012, the Complainant sent a legal notice to Opposite Party No.1.
5. Opposite Party No.2 deputed Mr. Vinod Sharma, Surveyor & Loss Assessor to conduct the Preliminary Survey who, vide letter dated 31.05.2010, observed that as the firefighting efforts were still going on, they were not in a position to comment about the quantum of loss. On 31.05.2010 itself, Opposite Party No.2 deputed P.S. Ramanathan, Surveyor who, vide Report dated 26.06.2011, estimated the total loss at Rs.49,32,536/-. The Complainant was not satisfied with the assessment made by the Surveyors. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed the instant Consumer Complaint with the following prayer:-
“(i) Direct the opposite parties to settle and release an amount of Rs.1,82,88,849.40 (Rupees One Crore Eighty Two Lacs Eighty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Nine) with 24% per annum jointly and severally since the date it became due till the date it is realized and/or;
(ii) Direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for gross deficiency in service and harassment and/or;
(iii) The Opposite Parties be directed to p
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
