Commercial entities are consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, and the credibility of surveyor assessments is upheld unless disproven.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(a)(1) - Consumer complaint for indemnification due to fire damage assessed by surveyors - Opposite Parties raised objection on maintainability claiming complainant was a commercial organization - Maintainability upheld as insurance contracts do not exclude commercial entities from being consumers - Validity of insurance policies acknowledged. (Paras 1-15)

(B) Assessment of Loss - Loss assessed by separate surveyors showed consistency in findings; surveys of both parties leading to similar damage estimates - Allegations of failure to consider accurate loss refuted as Complainant provided no evidence against the surveyor's assessments. (Paras 26-28)

Facts of the case:
Complainant, a manufacturer of Kraft Paper, claimed indemnification for a fire incident leading to significant inventory loss. Complainant alleged deficiencies in the service provided by the opposite parties based on varying loss assessments. (Paras 2-6)

Findings of Court:
The court found no deficiency in service; the surveyed losses were deemed correct, with payments made by the Insurers acknowledged. (Paras 27-28)

Issues: The core issue revolved around whether the Consumer Complaint was maintainable and whether the assessment of loss made by the surveyors was correct. (Paras 6 & 18)

Ratio Decidendi: The Commission established that commercial entities can be consumers under the Act, and affirmed the importance of surveyor reports in the evaluation of claims, leading to upholding the assessments provided. (Paras 15 & 27)

Result: Complaint dismissed.

Table of Content
1. claim for indemnification filed under relevant consumer protection legislation. (Para 1 , 2)
2. fire incident caused significant damage leading to consumer complaint. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. claims processed and assessed by surveyors indicated similar loss amounts. (Para 6 , 10 , 11)
4. surveyors' assessments upheld absent contrary evidence. (Para 18 , 24)
5. final decision rendered in favor of the opposite parties, dismissing the complaint. (Para 28)

1. The present case is filed under S.21(a)(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .

2. The Complainant is a manufacturer of Kraft Paper and Grey Board and used to purchase the raw material such as corrugated boxes and waste paper locally in India and imported from U.S.A. The Complainant took Insurance Policy No. 360201/11/09/11/00000148 from Opposite Party No. 1 for an amount of Rs. 3,36,50,000. Complainant also took Insurance Policy No. 401600/11/09/3100000232 from Opposite Party No. 2 for an amount of Rs. 3,32,60,000, covering the risk of stock, plant & machinery, furniture, building, etc. and paper and carboard mills (including lamination) respectively. Both Policies were valid from 29.6.2009 to 28.6.2010.

3. The case of the Complainant is that on 28.5.2010 between 1.00 p.m. and 1.30 p.m. duringweekly power shutdown, fire broke damaging the waste paper (raw material) lying in the open yard / go - down of the Complainant. Due to the power shut, no work was going on and only few staff members were present in the factory. Some of the neighbouring farmers and villagers noticed the fire incident and intimated the fire station and the Complainant. The fire burnt all the waste paper, finished sheets and bundle reels. Mr. Gurbir Singh, the Director of the Complainant, reached the spot of incident within 15-20 minutes and noticed that two fire brigades were trying to control fire, which spread due to the wind and damaged the raw material completely. The fire continued all night and could only be controlled at around 2 p.m. on the next day.

4. On 28.5.2010, Opposite Party No. 1 deputed M/s. Rajesh Mahajan & Co. to conduct thePreliminary Survey. He recorded loss to major portion of stocks lying in the open due to fire. The stock also got damaged due to soaking of water, blackening by soot and smoke deposit. The cause of the fire could be due to spark travelling from the neighbouring factory, where the employees burnt its waste. The Preliminary Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 50 lakh. Opposite Party No. 1 deputed M/s. Soni & Co. as Surveyors to investigate and assess the loss. The Surveyor carried out a detailed investigation of accounts as well as the sale made by the Complainant. The Complainant provided documents pertaining to the Bank Accounts, invoices relating to the purchases made during the relevant period along with the stock ledger accounts. On 23.5.2012, the Complainant sent separate letters to the Opposite Parties intimating that the Complainant had received collective amount of Rs. 50 Lakh from the Opposite Parties and asked the Opposite Parties to provide the basis of settlement of claim and registered a protest for non - acceptance of the settlement. On 11.12.2012, the Complainant sent a legal notice to Opposite Party No. 1.

5. Opposite Party No. 2 deputed Mr. Vinod Sharma, Surveyor & Loss Assessor to conduct the Preliminary Survey who, vide letter dated 31.05.2010, observed that as the firefighting efforts were still going on, they were not in a position to comment about the quantum of loss. On 31.5.2010 itself, Opposite Party No. 2 deputed P.S. Ramanathan, Surveyor who, vide Report dated 26.6.2011, estimated the total loss at Rs. 49,32,536. The Complainant was not satisfied with the assessment made by the Surveyors. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed the instant Consumer Complaint with the following prayer: -
â€œ(i) Direct the opposite parties to settle and release an amount of Rs. 1,82,88,849.40 (Rupees One

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7241

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHIV. K. Jain, JHemkunt Coated Paper Pvt. Ltd. v. New India Assurance Company Ltd.Consumer Complaint No. 1234 of 2013

Commercial entities are consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, and the credibility of surveyor assessments is upheld unless disproven.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V. K. Jain, J
Hemkunt Coated Paper Pvt. Ltd. v. New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Consumer Complaint No. 1234 of 2013