SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Presiding Member
National Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
versus
M/s. S.K. Rice Mill and Anr. – Respondents
First Appeal No.437 of 2016
(Against the Order dated 11/02/2016 in Complaint No.113/2013 of the State Commission U.P.)
Decided on 23.2.2024

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Yogesh Malhotra, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2: Ex-parte Vide Order Dated 23.12.2022

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 51] – Appeal – Banking Services – Insurance – Complainant produced the requisite accounting records, including the balance sheet and audit report and established the loss as Rs.40,36,940/-. There is nothing on record to refute or disbelieve the same. It is also admitted position that OP-1 paid Rs.8,50,551/-, to the Complainant. Therefore, deducting this from Rs.40,36,940/- the amount due to be paid by the Insurer to the Complainant is Rs.31,86,389/- – Appeal dismissed, impugned order confirmed. [Paras 10 to 19].

Result: Appeal dismissed.

ORDER

The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”) against the Order dated 11.02.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UP, Lucknow (“the State Commission”), in Consumer Complaint No. 113 of 2013, wherein the Complaint filed by the Complainant (Respondent No.1 herein) was partly accepted.

2. There is 35 days delay in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in IA/4032/2016 seeking condonation, the delay is condoned.

3. For Convenience, the parties in the present Appeal being referred to as mentioned in the Complaint before the learned State Commission. “M/s. S.K. Mini Rice Mill” is referred to as the Respondent No.1/Complainant, “National Insurance Co. Ltd.” is referred to as the Petitioner/OP1/Insurer and Punjab National Bank is referred to as Respondent No.2/OP2 in this matter.

4. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that the Complainant had obtained a Fire and Special Perils Insurance policy No.450106/11/11/3100000070 from Petitioner/Opposite Party no.1, National Insurance Co. Ltd (OP-1) valid from 06.07.2011 to 05.07.2012 for which the Complainant paid premium of Rs.16,131/-. 5. The Complainant’s Mill caught fire in the night of 17/18.05.2012 resulting in loss of Rs.42,76,168.20/- as follows:-

S. Commo- Rate Quantity Values

No. dity (Rs/Qt) (QT) in Rs.

1. Rice 1500.00 1194.840 17,92,260.00

Common

2. Paddy 1080.00 1941.00 22,32,538.20

Common

(Inclusive

of Taxes)

3. Rice Bran 700.00 209.10 1,46,370.00

4. Vardana 15.00 7000 1,05,000.00

TOTAL 42,76,168.20

6. Fire brigade reached on spot and by the efforts of fire brigade and villagers fire was extinguished but the stock of Rs.4,97,210/- only could been saved. The intimation of fire was given to OP-1 on 19.05.2012 and same day report was lodged in concerned police station and Punjab National Bank. The Complainant forwarded all records to sale tax and income tax department as per rules and regular audit of his stock was also done. Closing balance of stock was Rs.37,64,260.76/- on 31.03.2010; Rs.46,68,655.50/- on 31.03.2011; and Rs.45,52,518.00/- on 31.03.2012. A surveyor was appointed by the insurer in respect of damages from fire and the complainant forwarded all papers asked by the surveyor like FIR, Report of Fire Brigade, Newspaper cutting, copy of audit report to him. The surveyor has submitted his report but no copy of it was given to the Complainant. Later, the OPs by conspiring with each other, prepared discharge voucher of Rs.8,50,551.00/- and by having the signature of Punjab National Bank, the above amount was deposited in the Complainant’s account. On coming to know, they informed the insurer on 28.02.2013 that the amount is so less which is not acceptable to him. Insurance Company had committed deficiency in service by assessing the above amount by its own will and the report of surveyor was also not given. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed a Complaint before State Commission claiming total loss of Rs.42,76,168.20/- and if Rs.8,50,551 is deducted from it the remaining amount is Rs.34,25,617.20/- for which he prayed relief and interest @ 18% per annum on the above amount, Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs.50,000/- for cost of case.

7. In its reply, the Petitioner/OP-1 denied the contentions in the complaint that the claim of closing stock on 31.03.2012 by the Complainant’s as not correct. The assessment of loss was done by the surveyor. The survey report was sent to bank and the payment was also made to the financer bank. Survey report was not made available to the complainant. The insurer admitted the insurance of stock on the date of incident in its reply and deduction of 25% in the amount assessed by the surveyor. OP-2/ Bank has stated in its reply that the transfer of Rs.8,50,551/- in the account of complainant was received from insurer. Bank has not committed any deficiency.

8. The learned State Commission vide order dat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top