Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 3306
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Bharatkumar Pandya, J
Lexportex (India) Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Respondent
Consumer Complaint No. NC/CC/84/2010 | NC/IA/18048/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR. SHUBHAYU ROY, MR. ROHIT DUTTA, MS. PRIYATA CHAKRABORTY
For the Respondents: MR. NARESH KAUSHIK, MR. ANAND SINGH, MR. ANKIT CHATURVEDI, MR. AISHWARYA MISHRA, MS. SHIVANI SHARMA
Claimant bears the burden of proof in insurance claims; mere acceptance of a settlement does not preclude subsequent claims if established under coercive circumstances, necessitating comprehensive evidence of losses.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Sections 17 and 21 - Fire insurance claim - The complaint filed by the insured for the claim of Rs.1,19,64,880/- after the godown destroyed in a fire incident was disallowed by the insurer relying on the surveyor's report which found insufficient evidence for claimed losses of Shellac and Seedlac, resulting in approval of only Rs.22,17,806/- as full settlement - The surveyor's methodology and validity were questioned due to alleged lack of qualifications and reliance on delayed sample analysis. (Paras 1-31)
(B) Insurer's Obligations - The insurer's requirement for proof of loss and timely cooperation from the insured was highlighted, determining that the insurer’s stance on acceptance of full and final discharge vouchers was valid due to the lack of substantiated claims. (Paras 1-30)
(C) Evidence Assessment - The court reiterated that mere presentations without credible documentary proof cannot substantiate claims, emphasizing the duties of insured regarding documentation and compliance with policy conditions. (Paras 28-30)
(D) Dismissal - The complaint was dismissed due to the complainant's inability to establish the occurrence of loss and the failure to provide adequate evidence for the claims made. (Para 31)
ORDER
PER BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER
1. The present complaint has been filed by complainant – M/s Lexportex (India) Pvt. Ltd. who is running the business of manufacturing/trading of Aleuritic Acid, for which he imports raw materials named Seedlac, caustic soda and oxalic acid from foreign countries and purchased other materials called shellac from domestic market for export with financial loan from Central Bank of India. Complainant hired a godown on monthly rent basis from Martin Yard Ltd. situated in Kolkata.
2. On 12.09.2007, approximately 26,248 kg. of Seedlac and on 03.10.2007 further Gross 26,248 kg. of Seedlac was imported by the complainant from M/s Minilac Co. Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand at Kolkata port. After discharge from the ship at Kolkata Port, entire quantity of imported Seedlac was carried from Kolkata Port to the Complainant's Godown by M/s Mitra Enterprises, Custom authorized Clearing and Forwarding Agent (CHA) engaged by the complainant. Similarly two consignments of Shellac purchased from M/s Singhal Shellac Company and Shree Gopal Shellac Company were also received and stored at the godown. The said stock along with stock of other items in the godown at Khidderpore, inter alia, was covered under Standard Fire and Special Policy bearing Policy No, OG-08 2401-4003-000 00055 (Floater basis) for a period of 12 months from 08.11.2007 to 07.11.2008 for a sum insured of Rs.2.60 crores (consecutive third year in succession).
3. On 19.11.2007 at around 9 AM fire broke out in the complainant’s office premises located at Elgin Road, Kolkata and on 20.11.2007 another fire broke out in complainant's Godown situated at Satya Doctor Road (Martin Burn Complex), Khidderpore, Kolkata at around 12.50 PM and various stock kept in the affected Godown was gutted in fire and a total loss amounting to Rs.1,19,64,880/- was suffered by the complainant, for which they lodged claim with the office of the OP insurer. On 20.11.2007 itself complainant informed the incident of fire to the OP telephonically and thereafter vide letter dated 21.11.2007 informed OP and also the Watganj Police Station vide letter dated 05.12.2007. Mr. Dilip Kumar Saha was appointed as the Surveyor by the OP, who, as alleged, visited only once during his investigation i.e. on 22.11.2007. Surveyor during his first and last visit to the affected godown ought to have collected the samples of the debris in front of the complainant but he chose to collect the samples of the Debris almost one year later i.e. on 14.11.2008. On 23.11.2007 the Surveyor sent their Senior Associate Mr. Deepanjan Saha to the residence of the complainant to examine his PC although he did not possess any required qualification and who was not holding any surveyor’s licence for doing so nor was he accompanied by any computer Hardware/ Software Engineer. Mr. Saha came along with Surveyor's said letter dated 23.11.2007 and examined the complainant’s computer which was shifted to the residence of the complainant after fires in the office/godown of the complainant on 19/20.11.2007. Mr. Saha wrote a note in his own handwriting and complainant was also asked to put joint signature on such note. Surveyor sent prescribed 'Fire Claim Form' of the OP to the complainant vide his letter dated 04.12.2007 with direction to the complainant to return the same duly filled in mentioning the total amount claimed which was duly submitted by the complainant. The Surveyor submitted the Survey Report on 17.01.09 disallowing 80% of the Claim allowing only Rs.22,17,806/- finding the presence of Aleuritic Acid, Oxalic Acid and Caustic Soda but disbelieving the presence of Imported Seedlac and Shellac at the place of fire. (Pg. 191 to 236 of the complaint).
4. The Opposite Party rejected the claim of the complainant qua imported Seedlac and Shellac relying entirely upon Surveyor's report which was based upon the National Test House (NTH) report dated 13.01.2009 on the samples collected by the Surveyor and totally ignoring the
