NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Member
National Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
versus
M/s. Nitin Industries and Anr. – Respondents
First Appeal No.207 of 2012
(Against the Order dated 03/02/2012 in Complaint No.84/2006 of the State Commission Maharashtra)
Decided on 24.5.2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58] – Services – Insurance – Fire Accident – Concealment of material fact - By Insurance Company - Appeal against order of State Commission – Whether order of State Commission is perverse - The State Commission, assessed the total loss at Rs.19,30,000/- (Rs.6 lakhs towards machinery, Rs.3,20,000/- towards building plus Rs.10,10,000/- towards stock). The Surveyor assessed the cost of salvage at Rs.2,60,000/-. The State Commission, therefore, deducted the salvage cost of Rs.2,60,000/ from the net loss and assessed the loss at Rs.16,70,000/-. The State Commission also observed that the Complainant had not carried out any safety measures against the fire such as fire extinguisher piped water arrangement etc – Thus, State Commission found contributory negligence on the part of the Complainant and made 20% deduction on the amount of Rs.16,70,000/- and finally assessed the loss at Rs.13,30,000/-. – Appeal stands dismissed, as observed in para-11 above, there is concealment of material fact on the part of the Appellant. A cost of Rs.50,000/- is imposed on the Appellant, which shall be paid to the Complainant within two months from the date of this order. [Para 17, 18]
Result: Appeal dismissed with cost.
ORDER
The present Appeal is filed against the order dated 03.02.2012 passed by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (in short ‘State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No.84 of 2006 whereby the Consumer Complaint filed by the Complainant/Respondent No.1 was partly allowed.
2. Alongwith the First Appeal, IA/2/2012, an application for condonation of delay has also been filed by the Appellant. In the application, the Appellant had not mentioned the number of days of delay. As per computation done by the Registry, there is a delay of 36 days. For the reasons stated in the application and in the interest of justice, IA/2/2012 is allowed and delay condoned.
3. Complainant/Respondent No.1 is a proprietorship firm engaged in the business of plastic reprocessing. Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 is National Insurance Company. Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 is Ahmednagar Merchant Co-op Bank.
4. Case of the Complainant is that they took Standard Fire & Special Perils Insurance Policy No.271900/11/03/31/02847 for the period 10.03.2004 to 09.03.2005 for Rs.29 lakhs insuring the following:—
| (i) | Building | Rs.5 lakhs |
| (ii) | Machineries | Rs.8 lakhs |
| (iii) | Stock of plastic goods, raw materials & finished goods | Rs.16 lakhs |
|
| Total | Rs.29 lakhs |
On 30.07.2004 at about 10.45 am, there was loud sound in the electric transformer in front of the factory premises. Proprietor of the Company came out of the factory and noticed that there was sparking from the transformer. He immediately returned to the factory and found that main switch of the factory burst causing huge sound and fire. The stock of plastic kept in the factory premises caught fire and the fire spread rapidly. He immediately called the Fire Brigade, which took many hours to extinguish the fire. The Complainant also intimated the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company deputed Mr. Thombre as Surveyor, who inspected the factory premises on 31.07.2004. The Surveyor sought Fire Brigade Certificate, FIR, Panchnama, Certificate of the Electrical Inspector, Income Tax Returns, Books of Account, Stock Books, Statement of Account and the documents of hypothecation etc. On 28.06.2005, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the Complainant on the ground that it was a fraudulent claim. The Complainant approached the Insurance Ombudsman. Though on 17.03.2006, the Insurance Ombudsman allowed the claim, on 31.03.2006, the claim was dismissed as non-sustainable. The Insurance Ombudsman, vide order dated 31.03.2006, clarified that as in the earlier order the word “None” remained un-typed, he replaced it. Aggrieved by dismissal of the claim, the Complainant filed Complaint before the State Commission with the following prayer: -
“This Hon’ble commission direct, order/decree that the Opposite Party Insurance Company, to pay a sum of Rs.26,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs only) together with interest @ 18% from 30.07.2004 till payment and/or realization.”
5. The State Commission after hearing the proprietor of the Complainant in person and the Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties and perusing the record, partly allowed the Complaint with the following order: -
“1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. Opponent Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.13,30,000/- with 9% interest from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 28.06.2005 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the opponent shall be liable to pay the interest @ 9% p.a. on the entire amount due on the d ate of order till the realization of the entire amount.
3. Opponent is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the complaint.”
6. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the State Commission, the Opposite Party/Insurance Company has filed the instant First Appeal with the following prayer: -
(1) Hearsay – No documentary evidence in regard to financial stress of the insured has been brought on record and this assertion is merely a hearsay.(2) Sampling – A mere sampling of some bills canno....
IMPORATNT POINT Appointment of Surveyor – Insured can also appoint a Surveyor or loss accessor.
Surveyor report The surveyor report is not based on legally justiciable reasons and facts and cannot be relied upon, being arbitrary and perverse.
The insurer must resolve claims in a timely and fair manner, supported by adequate documentation, as upheld by the Consumer Protection Act.
Report of surveyor is an important document and a basis for consideration of the claim.
(1) Malafide intention - It appears that with some malafide intention, the Surveyor has rejected some of the genuine claims made by the Complainant.(2) Imaginary thoughts - The Surveyor ought to have....
Surveyor Report - report submitted by a Surveyor is an important piece of evidence and has to be given due weight, though it is not sacrosanct and can be ignored, provided there is cogent evidence ot....
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.