Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Subhash Chandra, Member
Taste’l Fine Foods Pvt. Ltd. – Complainant
versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.2788 of 2017
Decided on 3.1.2023
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 – Stage of production - Absence of details relating to stage of production of items - Assessment – Based on the semi-finished cost rate at 50% of finished cost rate on an average of 50% completion level – Justified - Complaint has been filed for alleged repudiation of claim - On merits, the only dispute relates to the assessment of loss – Thus, it is clear that as the Complainant had not provided the details of stage of production of items. In absence of details relating to stage of production of items, the Surveyor was justified in considering the semi-finished cost rate at 50% of finished cost rate on an average of 50% completion level. The allegation of the Complainant that the Surveyor had not given any rationale to assessment of the value of semi-finished products is accordingly rejected -Surveyor had discussed every aspect in detail and given reasons for assessment of loss. The Complainant failed to point out any illegality or arbitrariness in the Survey Report. The Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.16,44,128/-. The Complainant is, therefore, entitled for an amount of Rs.16,44,128/- - On facts, the Opposite Party is bound to make payment within 30 days from the date of submission of Final Survey Report -Thus, the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount ofRs.16,44,128/- as assessed by the Surveyor with interest. [Paras 6 to 23]
Result: Complaint al partly allowed.
ORDER
Complainant is a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. The Opposite Party is Insurance Company, dealing with various type of Insurances, including fire Insurance.
2. The Complainant deals in manufacturing, processing packaging and storage of frozen Indian breads, frozen snacks, ready to cook/bake food, ambient staple ready to eat meals, ready to cook sauces, pastes and condiments. Almost all products manufactured by the Complainant are exported. The Complainant has two units (i) for production of ready to eat products (hereinafter referred to as “Unit-1”) and (ii) for manufacturing and stocking of frozen food products (hereinafter referred to as “Unit-2”).
3. The Complainant took Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy No.0220001115-P103526547 for Rs.6 crores, later enhanced to Rs.7 crores. The Policy covered the risk of loss of goods, stock and material in the factory due to fire. The Policy was renewed from time to time. The Policy was valid from 26.06.2015 to 25.06.2015. On 03.11.2015 at about 2.00 to 2.30 hours, the Supervisor of the Complainant Company noticed that fire took place in Unit-2. He immediately informed the fire brigade of Karad Municipal Council. The fire brigade took about 7 hours to largely extinguish the fire. It took six days to completely douse the fire and kill the residual heat. The Police was also informed on 04.11.2015. On inspection by the Opposite Party, it was found that almost entire frozen food and raw material stock lying in Unit-2 was completely burnt and destroyed. The Opposite Party appointed M/s Parimal R. Shah & Company as Surveyor and Loss Accessor. The Complainant submitted a claim for Rs.2,25,85,437/-. On 20.05.2016, the Complainant revised the claim to Rs.2,15,83,085. In compliance of notice dated 06.11.2015 issued by Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, the Complainant also spent an amount of Rs.3,15,948/- for recycling and apportionment of waste food. On 20.06.2016, a meeting took place between the Complainant and the Surveyor wherein the Complainant was informed that several items were not covered under the Policy. The Complainant, therefore, reduced/revised the claim to Rs.1,82,31,946/- and submitted the revised claim, vide email dated 29.07.2016 and supplied a hard copy to the Surveyor through courier. The Opposite Party held meeting with the Complainant and the Surveyor on 16.08.2016 and the Complainant was asked to resubmit the claim on the basis of the supporting documents. On 16.09.2016, the Complainant once again reduced the claim to Rs.1,72,81,539/-. The Complainant came to know that the Surveyor, vide final Survey Report dated 21.06.2016 had already submitted the Survey Report assessing the loss at Rs.16,44,128/-. The Complainant, vide email dated 13.02.2017, raised its grievance before the Customer Care Department of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party, vide reply dated 15.02.2017, refused to entertain the claim of the Complainant stating that the Complainant is entitled to the claim of Rs.16,44,128/- as assessed by the Surveyor. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant filed the instant Consumer Complaint with following prayer:—
“(a) The Opponent be ordered to pay an amount of Rs.2,54,84,447/- (two crore fifty four lakh eighty four lakh four hundred forty seven only) to the Complainant, towards compensation for the loss arising due to fire, as particularly mentioned in clause 18 of the complaint above,
(b) The Opponent be further ordered to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the principal amount of compensation of Rs.1,72,81,539/- (one crore seventy lakh eighty one thousand five hundred thirty nine only), from the date of this complaint till its actual receipt by the Complainant,
(c) The Opponent be further ordered to pay the entire cost of the complaint to the Complainant,
(d) Any other order deemed fit and proper be passed.”
4. The Complaint was resisted by the Opposite Party by filing the wri
Assessment - In absence of details relating to stage of production of items, the Surveyor was justified in considering the semi-finished cost rate at 50% of finished cost rate on an average of 50% co....
Commercial entities are consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, and the credibility of surveyor assessments is upheld unless disproven.
Insurance companies must provide substantial proof when denying claims; unjust repudiation leads to enforceable obligations to pay agreed amounts.
The court established that a consumer can claim under the Consumer Protection Act for insurance disputes, even with commercial intent, emphasizing assessment fairness by the appointed Surveyor.
Assessment - The Complainant, therefore, cannot be allowed the amount beyond the assessment of the Surveyor.
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....
IMPORATNT POINT Appointment of Surveyor – Insured can also appoint a Surveyor or loss accessor.
The insurer must settle valid insurance claims timely, and failure to substantiate claims can lead to repudiation; however, claimants must provide adequate documentation to support their claims.
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
