NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member
National Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
versus
M/s Jagannath Polymers
Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal No.698 of 2023
(Against the Order dated 27/12/2022 in Complaint No. CD/89/2003 of the State Commission Orissa)
Decided on 9.8.2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 51] – Insurance – Burglary & House Breaking Policy – Damage caused to factory due to super cyclone – State Commission awarded consolidated amount of Rs.12,00,000/- for damage to factory shed, plant and machinery, Rs.2,20,000/- for theft of finished goods and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment, holding opposite parties as jointly and severally liable – From very beginning appellant was hostile and in spite of interim estimate, they did not pay and closed claim – Survey report does not indicate that on what basis, its valuation has been determined – Underinsurance assessed by Surveyor is arbitrary – There is nothing on record that Exclusion clauses were ever supplied to Insured – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 7, 8, 11 and 12)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
Heard Ms. Meenakshi Midha, Advocate, for the appellant.
2. Above appeal has been filed against the order of Odisha State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack, dated 27.12.2022, allowing Consumer Complaint No.89 of 2003, with cost of Rs.one lac and directing the appellant to pay insurance claim of Rs.1417496/- and Rs.100000/- as compensation for mental agony, with interest @12% per annum from 17.11.1999, till the date of payment.
3. The office has reported delay of 149 days in filing the appeal. The appellant has filed IA/8601/2023, for condoning the delay, in which, it has been stated that certified copy of the order dated 27.12.2022 was received on 03.01.2023. Thereafter, time was taken for obtaining sanction of appropriate authority for filing the appeal, drafting of the appeal, signing by authorised signatory and filing it, on 04.07.2023. Subject to objection of the respondents, delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the argument in the appeal was heard for admission.
4. M/s. Jagannath Polymers Private Limited and another (respondents-1 and 2) filed CC/89/2003, for directing the appellant and respondents-3 and 4 to pay (i) Rs.3829000/- with interest payable by the bank, towards their insurance claim; (ii) interest of the loan taken by the complainants from State Bank of India and other financial institutions, accrued due to non-settlement of their claim; (iii) Rs.600000/- as compensation for loss of business, mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation; and (iv) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. The complainants stated that M/s. Jagannath Polymers Private Limited was a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and Manoj Kumar Subudhi was its Managing Director. The complainants established its factory at IDCO Shed No.TS-3/A-36, 37, 48 & 49, Phase-III, New Industrial Estate, Mouza Gopinathpur, Jagatpur, for manufacture of high density polythene, poly propylene, un-laminated and laminated sacks, fabrics and cut length, in the year 1995. With the financial assistance of State Bank of India i.e. ‘term loan’ of Rs.1356244/- and ‘cash credit facility’ of Rs.800000/-, the complainants installed machinery and started production in the year 1996. Their factory was registered as ‘small scale industry’ with District Industry Centre, Cuttack. The complainants took Fire Policy No.153104/3100136/98-99, for the period of 02.11.1998 to 01.11.1999, for a sum insured of Rs.8427000/- (i.e. Rs.1500000/- for building, Rs.3800000/- for machinery & accessory, Rs.2600000/- for stocks and stock in process, Rs.323000/- for furniture fixture & fitting and Rs.204000/- for transformer) and Burglary & House Breaking Policy No.153104/7500082/98-99, for the period of 02.11.1998 to 01.11.1999, for a sum insured of Rs.6927000/-, for plant & machinery, transformer, electrical installation, stock, stock-in-process, finished goods, from National Insurance Company Limited. The complainants also took two insurance policies from Oriental Insurance Company Limited, for the period of 16.04.1999 to 15.04.2000 of the above properties. On 28.10.1999, super cyclone hit 10 coastal districts of Orissa, including Cuttack, with wind speed of 260 km per hours, followed by torrential rain for more than 36 hours, which was declared as worst cyclone of the century. Entire infrastructure of electricity of whole district of Cuttack was disrupted due to uprooting the poles, towers and trees. Due to heavy wind pressure, ACC sheets of the roof of the factory of the complainants were blown off, causing damage to the building, plant and machinery also. Due to torrential rain for more than 36 hours, the factory premises and godowns were flooded, due to which, raw materials, finished materials, plant & machinery, building, electrical fittings etc. were damaged/rusted as water logging remained for several days. The security persons left the factory premises in order to save their life. Taking a
Standard Chartered Bank vs. Andhra Bank Financial Services Limited
New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Pradeep Kumar
Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Sikka Papers Limited vs. National Insurance Company (2009 7 SCC 777. (Para 10) – Relied.
I.C. Sharma vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Dharmendra Kumar Goel vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Underinsurance assessed by Surveyor is arbitrary.
Insurance claims must be assessed justly, with surveyor reports not being conclusive and subject to scrutiny.
IMPORATNT POINT Appointment of Surveyor – Insured can also appoint a Surveyor or loss accessor.
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.
(1) Fresh Survey – if for any reason, the insurer is of the view that certain material facts ought to have been taken into consideration while framing a report by the surveyor and if it is not done, ....
Inundated - The rainfall measured 24 cm on a single day on 24th August, 2000. Many areas of these cities were inundated. As such, it is proved that cause of loss was inundation due continuous rain fa....
Corroboration of Evidence – The surveyor is an expert and its report stands on the footing of expert evidence and has to be corroborated with other evidence on record, in order to examine bonafide / ....
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.