ORDER

A.P. Sahi, President—The Complainant is a Pharmaceutical Public Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading pharmaceutical products of different descriptions. The complaint arises out of a denial of the liability by the Insurance Company in respect of the loss suffered and claim raised by the Complainant which has not been formally repudiated.

2. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent-Insurance Company insisted that at internal page of Para 1 of the Rejoinder filed by the Complainant, it has been stated that the claim has been repudiated through some letter and therefore in the absence of any action/objection raised to such repudiation letter, the complaint cannot proceed. He raises this technical argument, but at the same time has been unable to point out the existence of any repudiation letter from the records or otherwise. The argument therefore begs the question itself and hence appears to be unsustainable in as much as if the Rejoinder of the Complainant incorrectly states about repudiation taking the formal shape of a letter, no advantage can be taken of, as a fact not in existence cannot be presumed to exist on the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company. What seems to be the intent and purport of the recital contained in the Rejoinder is that the claim of the Complainant has not been accepted, and which is obviously under dispute in this complaint on the ground that the Insurance Company by not taking a decision, has registered a clear deficiency in service and hence the complaint deserves to be allowed.

3. Having cleared this web, the facts in brief giving rise to this claim are that a truck carrying a consignment of medicines that was dispatched on 10.9.2005 through Shree Transport Company while on its way from the Meerut godown of the Complainant to its godown at Hisar and Jaipur met with an accident near Hansi due to incessant rain. The road had become slippery and while negotiating a curve, the vehicle carrying the consignment skid from road and fell into the adjoining canal. Resultantly, the consignment was drenched in water and substantial part of the vehicle was submerged that caused complete damage to the consignment.

4. The consignment is said to be covered under the Insurance Policy where the risk covered was for the period 15.4.2005 to 14.4.2006. The accident occurred on 10.9.2005 which is within the said duration of the Policy.

5. The Complainant intimated the said accident to the Insurance Company on 12.9.2005 and the claim was lodged on 28.9.2005. The risks covered under the Policy are pharmaceutical products. The goods are assured under a total coverage of Rs. 75.00 lakhs with a limit per transit of Rs. 50.00 lakhs.

6. A Surveyor was deputed by the Insurance Company namely, M/s. Anil Kumar Sehgal, who conducted a Preliminary Spot Survey stating therein that the Surveyor visited the site of accident. The said Preliminary Survey Report dated 29.9.2005 at Item No. 17 records that the packages were found in wet and damaged condition and at Item No. 22 it categorically records the description of survey which is both at the site of the accident on 12th & 13th September, 2005 and then at the godown at Hisar on 14.9.2005.

7. The Preliminary Survey Report in its ‘‘Remarks and Recommendations’’ describes the entire event of survey witnessing the accidental condition of the vehicle lying in the Canal and also the material that had inter-mingled with the water flowing in the Canal that was recovered with help of fishermen by using their nets. In order to appropriately proceed with facts, it would be apt to quote the said “Remarks and Recommendations”, extracted here as under—

“Remarks and Recommendations

In accordance with the instructions received from Hisar Divisional Office on 12.09.2005, I, the undersigned proceeded to the site of accident. There I met with insured’s representative Mr. Kaushik and inspected the vehicle, carrying the questioned medicines in accidental cond