NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President and Dinesh Singh, Member
United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. and Anr. – Appellants
versus
M/s. Asian Agro Industries and Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal Nos.35 and 42 of 2013
Decided on 24.1.2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.19 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.51] – Appeal - Services – Insurance – Repudiation of Claim - not justified – Evidence on record – ignored by Surveyor - Surveyor while assessing the loss suffered by the Complainant has not applied his mind. The Surveyor has overlooked the record produced by the Complainant with regard to the Stocks lying in the insured premises and reduction of claims is based on his own whims. It appears that with some malafide intention, the Surveyor has rejected some of the genuine claims made by the Complainant - The Complainant has produced sufficient evidence/documents with regard to stocks in support of actual loss suffered by them but the Insurance Company as well as Surveyor has totally ignored the documentary evidence for the reasons best known to them - The Surveyor ought to have assessed the loss on the basis of actual account statements and the material lying at the spot and not on the basis of his own imaginary thoughts – On facts, Complainant was entitled for the interest on the amount awarded by the State Commission towards indemnification of the loss – Appeal for enhancement of compensation is allowed. [Paras 10 to 17]
Result: Appeal allowed.
ORDER
These two cross First Appeals arise out of the Order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred to as the ‘‘State Commission’’) in Consumer Complaint No. 33 of 2007. By the Impugned Order, while partly allowing the Complaint filed by the Appellant in First Appeal No. 42 of 2013/Complainant in the Complaint, the State Commission has directed the United India Insurance Company Ltd./Opposite Party in the Complaint (hereinafter referred to as the “Insurance Company”) to pay a total sum of Rs.8,27,082/- to the Complainant towards the loss suffered by it on account of fire incident at the insured premises.
2. Since both the Appeals emanate from the same Impugned Order and between the same Parties, these are being disposed of by this Common Order.
3. Briefly put, the material facts, giving rise to the filing of the present Appeals, as culled out from the Complaint, are that the Complainant Company obtained two Insurance Policies from the Opposite Party No.2 Insurance Company. One Policy was taken for the stock of the cattle feed and the raw material in the shape of cotton seed, scrap of chips, broken/damaged grains of all kinds including wheat, husk and other raw material in the shape of finished/semi-finished/stocks while in process and lying stored in the insured premises. The Second Policy was taken for the entire building occupied as Oil Extraction Plant-cum-Cattle Feed Factory. The said Policies were valid for the period from 26.09.2006 to 25.09.2007.
4. In the intervening night of 21.10.2006 and 22.10.2006, on the eve of Diwali, a fire broke out in the insured premises of the Complainant which caused a huge damage to the raw material and packing material. The roof of the Godown was also fallen. The Fire Brigade was informed about the incident of fire and it reached at the spot and fire was extinguished by them. On the morning of 22.10.2006, the matter was reported to the Police and DDR was entered in the Police Station, Sadar, Khanna. On the same very date, the Opposite Party Insurance Company was also informed about the fire Incident through an Intimation Letter. Upon intimation, the Insurance Company appointed the Investigator, Shri Hari Charan Kalia who vide letter dated 29.10.2006 sought some documents from the Complainant Company. The Complainant Company vide letter dated 04.11.2006 informed the Divisional Manager that the Surveyor and Loss Assessor had already visited the factory, photographs of the premises had been taken and the damaged stock was checked. Hence, the Complainant Company sought permission to restart the factory to avoid further loss and also requested the Insurance Company to settle the claim as early as possible. However, the another Surveyor and Loss Assessors, Rajesh Nakra & Company, vide their letter dated 07.11.2006 requested the Complainant Company to furnish the details/documents of estimate of loss of stock, item-wise detailed loss of the Building with schedule of measurement and supporting evidence of a Civil Engineer/Architect. Therefore, the Complainant appointed the Bhambri Associates to evaluate the loss of the Building which submitted his Detailed Valuation Report on 05.12.2006. The Complainant Company supplied all the requisite documents to the Surveyor. However, it was alleged by the Complainant Company that the said Surveyor demanded a bribe of Rs.2 lakh which was not acceded to by them. Later on, the said Surveyor was arrested red-handed by the Police in another bribe case. The Complainant Company approached the office of the Insurance Company for the quick relief but on the contrary, the Insurance Company appointed another Investigator, Shri Harjit Singh, Retired Superintendent of Police without their knowledge. The said Investigator visited the factory premises, employees and their relatives al
(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....
Insurance companies cannot avoid liability by citing external compensations, and second surveyors must be appointed with regulatory oversight.
(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.
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....
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....
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.
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.