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

2022 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7290

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Mr. Vinay Mathur, Mr. Nikhil Goel, JJ
M/s. Saurashtra Chemicals Limited – Appellant
Versus
National Insurance Company Limited – Respondent
Consumer Complaint No. 123 of 2011



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Vinay Mathur, Mr. Nikhil Goel
For the Respondents: Mr. Abhishek Kumar Gola

Insured is entitled to interest at 9% for delays beyond stipulated time frames following an accepted insurance claim settlement.

Headnote:This matter relates to an insurance claim upon alleged damages caused by an earthquake, involving the Insurance Act, 1938 and related regulations. The complainant sought additional compensation beyond the settled amount on grounds of assessment discrepancies and unfair practices by the insurer. The court determined that while part of the complaint was valid, the main claim for the difference was not legally sustainable due to acceptance of prior settlements. The relevant laws and regulations governing claim timelines were analyzed. Regulatory provisions stipulate that claims must be resolved within specific time frames and stipulated interest rates for delays are applicable. The court granted a portion of the claim concerning interest on the settled amounts.

Result: The complaint is partly allowed.

Table of Content
1. details regarding the insurance claim and damages. (Para 2 , 3)
2. arguments related to the maintainability of the complaint. (Para 4)
3. court's observation regarding the discharge voucher and related regulations. (Para 6 , 7 , 9)
4. ratio decidendi regarding the assessment of loss. (Para 8)
5. final conclusion and directions on interest payment. (Para 10)

1. Heard Mr. Vinay Mathur, Advocate and Mr. Nikhil Goel, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. Abhishek Kumar Gola, Advocate, for the opposite party.

2. M/s. Saurashtra Chemicals Limited has filed aforementioned complaint for directing National Insurance Company Limited (the Insurer) to pay (i) Rs. 74,74,694 as balance insurance claim, (ii) Rs. 25 lacs as compensation for mental pain and harassment, (iii) Rs. 1,24,45,365, i.e. interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 26.1.2001 to 24.4.2010, on the balance insurance claim, (iv) interest @18% per annum on the entire insurance claim from 25.4.2010 till the date of payment, (v) to pay Rs. one lac as cost of the litigation and (iii) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The facts, as stated in the complaint and emerged from the documents attached with the complaint, are as follows:
(a) The complainant (hereinafter referred to as the Insured) was a company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of ‘Soda Ash’. Manufacturing plant of ‘Soda Ash’ was at Porbander, where the Insured had residential colony and dairy farm. Major raw material of ‘Soda Ash’ was salt. The Insured had its own salt manufacturing works namely (i) Sikka Salt Works, (ii) Vadinar Salt Works, (iii) Bedi Salt Works, (iv) Parodia Salt Works, (v) Gagwa Salt Works and (vi) Khijadia Salt Works and Limestone quarry / Bromide Plant, Porbander.
(b) National Insurance Company Limited (for short the Insurer) is a public Insurance Company, engaged in the business of providing different types of insurance services. The Insured obtained following Policies from the Insurer: (i) Policy No. 2000/3401031, being Fire and Special Perils Policy. This was valid from 2.7.2000 to 1.7.2001, for sum insured of Rs. 2,84,00,00,000. (ii) Policy No.2000/3401037, being Fire and special Perils Policy. This was valid from 2.7.2000 to 1.7.2001, for sum insured of Rs. 97,50,00,000. (iii) Policy No. 2000/3401034, being Fire and Special Perils Policy. This was valid from 2.7.2000 to 1.7.2001, for sum insured of Rs. 3,44,50,000. In these policies, the risk specifically included loss on account of earthquake.
(c) State of Gujarat was rattled due to severe earthquake on 26.1.2001 at 8.45 a.m., which caused huge damages to the buildings, plant and machinery of the Insured. The Insured informed the Insurer about the aforesaid damages. The Insurer appointed C. P. Mehta & Company, Marine Lines, Mumbai, for survey and assessment of loss on 29.1.2001. The Surveyor inspected the various locations, which were damaged due to earthquake from 31.1.2001 till 16.2.2001 and submitted his preliminary survey report dated 23.2.2001.
(d) The surveyor vide letter dated 27.2.2001 demanded the requisite papers for assessment of the loss. The Insured submitted his claim form in respect of loss of the property and loss of profit on 9.3.2001. In this claim, loss of Dairy Farm Porbander, Office equipment, in Usmanpur, Ahmedabad, Disc Antenna and Instrument, Porbander and Bromide Plant, Porbander were also included, although, these were not covered in the polices taken from the Insurer as such a revised claim form was supplied. The Insured again revised claim form on 27.4.2001, 1.6.2001, 28.1.2002 and 5.4.2002.
(e) In the meantime, there were various demands from the side of the Surveyor, which were supplied by the Insured time to time as per demand letter. The Surveyor submitted his Final Survey Report on 2.10.2008, in which, he assessed the loss of the property to Rs. 2,63,19,511 and loss of profit t















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