NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
M/s. Tirupati Vinyl India Private
Limited – Appellant
versus
United India Insurance Company
Limited – Respondent
First Appeal No.495 of 2013
(Against the Order dated 07/05/2013 in Complaint No.65/2011 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
Decided on 12.5.2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.19 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.51] – Insurance - Fire Accident - “Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy” - Delay in settlement of claim - Appeal against order of State Commission – Delay in settlement of Claim if amounts to deficiency of Service – Thus, if the Complainant did not accept the claim amount it could have been deposited with the State Commission and the inordinate delay of almost 2 years in settling the claim, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Insurance Company, for which they are liable to pay interest on the assessed amount - Appeal is partly allowed and the Respondent Insurance Company is directed pay a sum of Rs.35,72,791/- [Para 18 to 20]
Result: Appeal allowed.
ORDER
The present Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 07.05.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan at Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred to as “State Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant was partly allowed and the Respondent was directed to pay Rs.16,40,262/- to the Complainant, being the full and final settlement after loss assessed by M/s Apex Assessors Pvt. Ltd./ the Second Surveyor. The Respondent was also directed to pay interest @9% on the above amount from 01.06.2010 till date of realisation along with Rs.1,00,000/- payable towards mental agony and hardships.
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the Complaint are that the Complainant, a company incorporate under the Companies Act, 1956, is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of products made from plastic. Complainant had taken a “Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy” bearing Policy No. 140400/11/09/11/00000627 from the Respondent, United India Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company) for a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from 26.08.2009 to 25.08.2010 for covering risk of “storage of Non-hazardeous goods subject to warranty that goods of Category I, II, III, Coin waste, Coin fibre, Caddies are not stored therein.” Unfortunately, on 29.10.2009, fire broke in nearby Indian Oil Corporate Limited (IOCL) fuel Storage and Distribution terminal situated in the RICCO industrial Area. The fire continued for two hours resulting in huge loss of property and life. The factory of the Complainant being closely situated (50 meters away) caught fire and caused severe damage to the building and the goods kept therein. The Complainant informed the Respondent Insurance Company about the fire incident on 09.12.2009 and submitted a claim of Rs.85,00,000/- alongwith statement of property destroyed and damaged. The Respondent appointed a surveyor being Mr. Shyam Lal Agarwal, who assessed the loss of Rs.35,72,791/- [in the Complaint it is mentioned as Rs.37,26,103/-] vide Survey Report dated 24.12.2009.
3. Pertinently, IOCL, on the insistence of the Ministry of Petroleum, Government of India had released an amount of Rs. 50 crores to be distributed to the units affected by the fire incident through RICCO. The Surveyor report prepared by Mr. Shyam Lal Agarwal was submitted before RICCO. In compliance of directions of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, RICCO made payment of 40% of the amount assessed by the Surveyor in his report dated 24.12.2009, i.e., Rs. 14,63,953/- towards adhoc relief against damages caused due to IOC fire incident, was paid to the Complainant Company.
4. The Respondent Insurance Company, appointed another Surveyor being M/s Apex Assessors Pvt. Ltd, who assessed the loss at Rs.15,52,317/- vide survey report dated 03.10.2011. Despite that, the Respondent Insurance Company did not settle the Claim of the Complainant. Aggrieved by the actions of the Respondent Insurance Company, the Complainant filed Complaint before the State Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Insurance Company with the following reliefs:-
“A. That the application of the Complainant Company should be accepted and the orders to be passed against the defendant company an amount of Rs.37,26,103/- along with interest payable at the rate of 12% per annum till the date of payment for not settling the claim of the Complainant Company for more than two years time without any reason.
B. That the Complainant Company had to suffer heavy losses due to the non-settlement of the claim by the defendant insurance company for more than two years and had to face mental harassment and problems and also bad impact has been arrived on the goodwill of the Complainant Company. For the compensation of all this an order for grant of a compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- should be passed in favour of the Complainant Company and against the defendant insurance company.
C. That
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Protection Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd.
Insurance companies cannot avoid liability by citing external compensations, and second surveyors must be appointed with regulatory oversight.
(1) Insurance company cannot arbitrarily appoint surveyors claim to the insured.(2) It is within the purview of the insurance company to accept or reject surveyors’ assessment, but valid reasons need....
(1) Claim - The surveyor certainly was required to submit his claim within 30 days and in any circumstance submit its report within 30 days and extension can only be sought with information to the in....
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....
Second Surveyor – In the present case, there no valid reasons are stated for the appointment of the second surveyor. There is nothing to suggest that the first surveyor’s report to be arbitrary or th....
Insurers must appoint qualified surveyors and provide just compensation based on thorough assessments; arbitrary alteration of surveyor findings by consumer commissions is impermissible.
The insurer must resolve claims in a timely and fair manner, supported by adequate documentation, as upheld by the Consumer Protection Act.
Surveyor – It is mandatory for the Insurer to appoint a surveyor for assessment of loss, exceeding Rs.25000/- under Section 68 UM of Insurance Act, 1938. Bonafide/malafide – The surveyor is an expert....
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.