Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Sudip Ahluwalia, Presiding Member
Venkateshwara Banana
Ripening Unit – Complainant
versus
SBI General Insurance
Co. Ltd. and Anr. – Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.498 of 2019
Decided on 29.10.2024
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. Pancham Surana, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties:Mr. Suryakant Vyas, Advocate Through V.C.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(1)(a) – Insurance Policy – Deficiency in service – Payment of insurance amounts along with ancillary reliefs – Loss of goods in fire – Damage to building – Appreciation of evidence – Assessment of loss by Surveyor – Approach adopted by Surveyor in assessing the losses suffered by Complainant would appear to be peculiar not merely because Surveyor had delegated calculation of loss in stocks to CA Firm, but also from the way huge cuts were made from amounts claimed by Complainant under various heads, by holding that losses as claimed had not been actually suffered, or that actual losses were much less, without giving any details or providing any material to support these observations – No more than an amount of Rs.7 lakhs ought to have been deducted from claim towards depreciation as well as scrap salvage value on account of which additional amount of Rs.6,67,380/- is found due towards Insured/Complainant – Complainant is entitled to additional amount of Rs.7,28,718/- towards damage to its building – In addition, an mount of Rs.14,80,685/- is also found payable to it by Insurance Company on account of shortfall in actual delivery price of ripening unit & heat chambers, which had to be re-installed – It is also entitled to amount of Rs.36,968/- as additional entitlement towards installation of damaged weighing scale – Total of all these amounts comes to Rs.29,13,751/- – Complainant is entitled to amount of Rs.29,13,751 payable by OPs alongwith interest @ 7% p.a. from date of filing of complaint – Litigation costs assessed at Rs.1 lakh awarded in favour of complainant.(Paras 23, 30 onwards)
Result: Complaint allowed.
ORDER
Sudip Ahluwalia, Presiding Member.—This Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, and seeking payment of the claimed insurance amounts along with ancillary reliefs.
2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant began a trading business in fruits and vegetables and established a banana procurement and ripening chamber. To finance this venture, he secured cash credit loans of Rs.42,00,000/- and a term loan of Rs.96,00,000/- from the State Bank of Mysore, P.C. Extension Branch, Kolar. These loans were released after all necessary formalities were completed and secured by the Complainant’s immovable property, stock, receivables, plant, and machinery. Additionally, the Complainant obtained further loans of Rs.16,00,000/- and Rs.25,00,000/- for working capital, bringing the total loan amount to Rs.1,79,00,000/-. He also invested Rs.1,50,00,000/- of his own funds to complete the project for Sri Venkateshwara Banana Ripening Unit. The Opposite Party insured the Complainant’s stocks and ripening unit against fire, allied perils, and burglary under two policies: Policy No. 5100581 for Rs.50,00,000/- (effective from 14.07.2016 to 13.07.2017) and Policy No. 4803584 for Rs.2,18,00,000/- (effective from 17.08.2016 to 16.08.2017). On 10.07.2017, a fire caused by a short circuit occurred, damaging the insured stocks and property. The fire, which broke out at midnight, resulted in the complete destruction of the building, plant, machinery, and stock. The Fire Station Officer from Tamka, Kolar inspected the site on 12.07.2017 and reported that the building, machinery, and stock were extensively damaged, with significant cracks in the building walls. On 09.08.2017, the Complainant filed two claims: one for Rs.41,00,000/- (Claim No. 395861 for loss of stock) and another for Rs.2,09,14,512/- (Claim No. 394244, covering Rs.74,22,780/- for the building, Rs.1,13,41,732/- for loss of the plant and machinery, Rs.20,000/- for stock, and Rs.1,50,00,000/- for other losses). The Opposite Party’s official team inspected the property thrice, collecting data and photographs of the damage. On 19.12.2017, the Complainant Emailed his ledger account extracts to the Respondents, highlighting the delay in claim settlement, which was affecting loan repayments. On 24.01.2018, he provided details of sales and purchases for April and May 2017, certified by an auditor, noting that the bills for June and July were destroyed in the fire and provided details collected from farmers and customers. The Complainant also filed a report with the Kolar Rural Police Station and informed his banker about the damage. The Electrical Inspector inspected the damage and reported to the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, on 31.01.2018. On 07.03.2018, “Fresh for Health” confirmed that the Complainant’s receivables were Rs.37,02,200/- as of 31.03.2017, and the total costs for building and others were Rs.1,89,14,512/-. Despite multiple requests, the Opposite Party delayed the claim settlement, prompting the Complainant to send an email on 07.06.2018 expressing his displeasure over the 11-month delay, which impacted the loan repayments. On 18.06.2018, the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to settle the claim, clarifying that there were no duplicate claims, and enclosing the farmers’ bills. The Opposite Party continued to raise baseless allegations, delaying the settlement. On 26.06.2018, the Complainant sent another email requesting claim settlement. On 2.7.2018, the Opposite Party partially settled the claims, disallowing Rs.19,86,938/- from Claim 1 (settling only Rs.21,13,062/-) and Rs.1,40,77,526/- from Claim 2 (settling only Rs.68,36,986/-). On 24.08.2018, the Complainant requested payment of the disallowed amounts of Rs.19,86,938/- (Claim 1) and Rs.1,40,77,526/- (Claim 2). The Opposite Party did not pay the remaining amounts,
