Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Member
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. —Appellant
versus
M/s. Demm Auto Engineering Works —Respondent
First Appeal No.458 of 2014
(Against the Order dated 02/07/2014 in Complaint No.221/2008 of the State Commission Delhi)
Decided on 4.1.2022
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58] – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 68UM – Services – Insurance – Fire Accident – State Commission directed Insurance Company to pay the sum, aggrieved by the finding appeal has been preferred – Whether Complainant can appoint a Surveyor – Insured can also appoint a Surveyor or loss accessor – Therefore, the argument of the Opposite Party that the Complainant cannot appoint the Surveyor is rejected. [Para 10].
Held: IRDA Circular No.IRDA/NL/Cir/Misc/129/07/2015 dated 14th July, 2015, considered.
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58] – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 68UM – Services – Insurance – Fire Accident – Whether repudiation of claim was only on technical grounds – The Surveyor appointed by the Complainant had observed that it was not possible to find out the stock on the basis of physical verification – Surveyor further observed that after verification of books & records of the Insured, the quantity of sale and purchase as per bills was found to be tallying with the entries in the stock – Surveyor assessed the final loss at Rs.19,86,489/-. The State Commission relied on the assessment of loss made by the Surveyor appointed by the Complainant. The State Commission awarded this amount to the Complainant alongwith interest @ 9%. The State Commission also awarded the fees paid by the Complainant to the Surveyor M/s G.R. Kejriwal to the tune of Rs.56,536/-, alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.20,000/- towards litigation cost – The Complainant’s otherwise genuine insurance claim was rejected through letter dated 1/17.3.2008. The grounds of rejection were ill-conceived factually incorrect and appeared mala-fide which amounts to gross deficiency in service.” – On facts, Insurance claim of the Complainant was repudiated by the Opposite Party purely on technical grounds – Thus, Opposite Party failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order which may warrant interference in the Appellate jurisdiction – Appeal dismissed. [Para 10]
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
The present Appeal is filed against the order dated 02.07.2014 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short ‘State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No. 221/2008.
2. Alongwith the Appeal, IA/5257/2014 an application for condonation of delay of four days has also been filed by the Appellant. For the reasons mentioned in the application and in the interest of justice IA/5257/2014 is allowed and delay condoned.
3. The case of the Complainant is that they obtained a “Standard Fire and Special Perils Insurance Policy” No.354101/11/06/11/00000472 for a sum of Rs.70,00,000/-. The Policy was valid from 12.10.2006 to 11.10.2007 covering stock of all kinds of auto parts. The Auto Parts stock was under hypothecation to Punjab National Bank, Sukhrali, Gurgaon. On 13.05.2007 around 9:00 PM, a massive fire broke out in Chhadha Building engulfing entire Guru Nanak Market which included the insured premises/shop of the Complainant. Fire Brigade was called which took several hours to bring fire under control. The Police was also informed and matter was reported to local media also. Due to this devastating fire, entire packed material lying at the insured premises was destroyed due to heat and water. During the course of extinguishing fire, packed material was thrown down from the first floor of the building by the fire fighters and got mixed up with the stock of other shop owners. The Complainant informed the Opposite Party regarding the incident of fire over phone and thereafter lodged Insurance claim, vide letter dated 14.05.2007, reference No.DEM/6/2007-2008. The Complainant informed the Opposite Party also through Punjab National Bank, vide letter dated 14.05.2007. In view of safety and security the affected auto parts were transported to Gurgaon as there was no space available to keep the material in safe custody. Intimation of shifting of the damaged material was also given to the Opposite Party on the same day over telephone. According to the estimate made immediately after the fire, the value of the affected property was well above Rs.52,94,510/-. The Opposite Party deputed M/s HRC Associates assessor to carry out survey and assess the loss, who submitted an interim report dated 28.06.2007. The Surveyor was informed about the shifting of the material and was taken to Gurgaon where the affected/damaged material was stored. The Surveyor carried out the survey, took extensive photographs and inspected the damaged material physically at Gurgaon and Delhi. Despite several visits, the assessment of loss was not done by the Surveyor. On 20.09.2007, the Complainant wrote a letter to the IRDA, with a copy to the General Manager of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party informed the Complainant that they have deputed another Surveyor M/s S.S. Sharma & Associates. The second Surveyor visited the place of incident on 22.12.2007. He also inspected the damaged material lying at Gurgaon. He was also provided with the information sought as also the necessary documents relating to sale and purchase of the material as well as accounts records etc. The Surveyor observed that at the time of incident the stock damaged in fire was kept outside the insured premises. The Insured had also removed the damaged stock from the site without intimation to the Surveyor or the Insurance Company. The loss was, therefore, not admissible under the Policy. The Opposite Party, vide letter dated 17.03.2008, repudiated the claim on the ground on the ground that “the affected stocks were lying outside the insured premises i.e., Shop No.50, Guru Nanak Auto Market and is not legally payable within the scope of the Policy”. The Complainant wrote to the Opposite Party, vide letters dated 20.03.2008 and 24.03.2008, for reconsideration of the matter but in vain. Since the loss was not assessed, the Complainant appointed M/s. Kejriwal & Co., Surveyor, who assessed the loss at Rs.34,52,596/-. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite
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
