National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Hansa Wire Product Pvt. Ltd. vs 1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 18 November, 2011
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 55 OF 2001 HANSA WIRE PRODUCT PVT. LTD., BG 46, Shalimar Bagh (East), Delhi 110052 Through its Managing Director Shri S.K. Jain ........ Complainant(s) Vs. 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., Registered and Head Office, At 24, Whites Road, Chennai 600 014. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office No. 24, F-43, Connaught Place, New Delhi 3. BRANCH MANAGER, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., E-85, Himalaya House, K.G. Marg, New Delhi 4. THE CHIEF MANAGER, Punjab National Bank, Tolstoy House, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi . Opposite Party (ies) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER For the Complainant : Mr. S.S. Lingwal, Advocate with Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party (ies) : Mr. S.M. Tripathi, Advocate Dated: 18th November, 2011 ORDER
PER JUSTICE R.C.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER Alleging deficiency in service for not settling the insurance claim of the complainant, Hansa Wire Product Pvt. Ltd., a private limited company registered as a Small Scale Industry for manufacture of wires, cables, conductors, having its factory at premises No. G-30, Sector-6, Noida, U.P. has filed this complaint seeking a compensation of Rs. 72,13,367.75 with interest @ 24% per annum with effect from 02.5.1992 till the date of payment.
2. In nut shell the case of the complainant is that the complainant through opposite party No. 4 Bank had purchased an Insurance Policy bearing No. 41902/46/05/4180/91 from the opposite party No. 1 Insurance Company on 29.04.1991 in the joint name of the complainant and opposite party No. 4. The said insurance policy besides other risks covered the risk of theft of the installed plant and machinery, goods, raw material and stocks lying in the above mentioned factory of the complainant. During 1992 the factory was not functional. On 11.4.1992, Shri S.K. Jain, Managing Director of the complainant company received a telephonic call from the neighbour of the factory about the theft which had taken place in the factory premises of the complainant and soon he reached the factory and found that some of the machinery and stocks which had been installed and lying in the factory premises had been removed and stolen from the factory. Immediately thereafter, Shri S.K. Jain lodged an FIR bearing No. 318142 dated 11.04.1992 with the Police Station, Sector-20, Noida, U.P. in regard to the theft at his factory. He also informed the opposite parties about the incident of theft. The complainant company thereafter requested opposite party No. 4-Bank to lodge claim in regard to the loss suffered by the complainant on account of the theft of the stocks and machinery which had occurred at his insured factory but opposite party No. 4 failed to lodge the claim with the insurance company and so the complainant itself filed the claim with opposite party No. 2. However, the insurance company failed to settle the claim of the complainant despite supplying all the requisite documents and material as were sought for by the surveyor and insurance company. M/s. Digambar Lal Puri & Sons was appointed as surveyor by the opposite party to assess the loss and a Joint Inspection was also conducted by a team consisting of surveyors and some officials of the opposite party-Insurance Company. It is stated that the complainant had also agreed for settlement of its claim by the opposite party on lower side than the loss suffered by it on the suggestion of the surveyor M/s. Digambar Lal Puri & Sons. However, the insurance company rejected the claim of the complainant prior to November, 1994 and therefore the complainant took up the matter with higher authorities like Director (Insurance) in the Directorate of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, by making representations which were made over to the authorities of the insurance company for consideration. Even then, the complainants claim remained unsettled and therefore, after issuing a legal notice dated 30.3.2000, the present complaint has been filed. Out of the claimed amount of Rs. 72,13,367.75P in the complaint, Rs. 27,13,367.75 is the amount of the insurance claim and the balance amount is claimed towards the interest on the said amount @ 24% per annum, a sum of Rs. 10 lacs for loss of reputation and a further sum of Rs. 10 lacs on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. On being noticed, the opposite parties contested the complaint by filing a joint written statement on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 to 3 and a separate written version on behalf of opposite party No. 4. In the written version filed on behalf of opposite party No. 1 to 3 preliminary objections have been taken in regard to the present complaint being barred by time; the claim having been repudiated on or before 02.11.1994 while the petition has been filed on or after 16.2.2001 i.e. after a gap of more than six years. The final survey report dated 21.12.1994 received from the surveyors has been annexed as Annexure R-1 with the reply, which would show that there has been a total non-cooperation of the complainant with the surveyor due to which the surveyor could not assess the loss, if any. The complaint is of fraudulent nature as the documents and records made available to the surveyor indicated that the complainant had not acted in good faith in setting up his claim; the theft of the huge quantity of material as claimed could not have taken place and that in view of the complex facts involved in the case which would require a lot of evidence, the proper determination of the claim in the complaint is not possible by this Commission in exercise to its summary jurisdiction under the Provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore, the complainant should be relegated to the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance. On merits the factum of the complainant having taken an insurance policy in order to cover several risks including the risk of burglary in his factory is not disputed. However, it is stated that the complainant has not filed the copy of the FIR which he claimed to have filed with Police Station, Sector, 20, Noida in regard to the theft at his factory. Various observations made and findings recorded by the surveyor have been reproduced in the reply in order to show that the claim of the complainant was fraudulent or in any case excessive and disproportionate to the loss which might have been occasioned to the complainant. It is denied that the answering opposite parties have committed any deficiency in service entitling the complainant to seek any compensation much less the compensation claimed in the complaint.
4. In the separate written version filed on behalf of opposite party No. 4- Punjab National Bank, preliminary objections have been taken about the maintainability of the present complaint against the Chief Manager of the Punjab National Bank, who is stated to be only a functionary of the said bank and therefore, cannot be sued for and on behalf of the said bank especially when as per the complainants own showing it had the financial dealings with the Punjab National Bank and not with the answering opposite party, the complainant does not disclose any cause of action against opposite party No. 4; which had already filed a recovery suit bearing No. 1134 of 1995 against the complainant and other parties for recovery of sum of Rs. 96,49,519/- and for other reliefs in the High Court of Delhi sometime in 1992 and thereafter it was transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi in the year 1995 under the Provisions of The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 , which was stated to be pending before the said Tribunal. In that suit / claim, complainant had not made any allegations if deficiency in service against the answering opposite party in regard to the present insurance claim. It is also stated that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and is guilty of suppression of material facts and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The allegations made against opposite party No. 4 are stated to be vague and ambiguous and not disclosing as to when, where and how the answering opposite party had failed to render the services to the complainant. On merits it is not disputed that the complainant had taken certain financial assistance from the answering bank who in turn had taken the insurance coverage on behalf of the complainant form the opposite party-insurance Company. It is maintained that whatever information / documents were required by the insurance company / surveyor were submitted to them and therefore the answering opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service on the strength of which they can be made liable to pay any compensation, much less the compensation claimed by the claimant in the present complaint.
5. In the rejoinders, the complainant has denied and controverted the objections and pleas raised by the opposite parties in their respective written versions and has generally reiterated the averments and pleas made in the complaint. The complainant has denied that the complaint is barred by time. It is also denied that the claim was repudiated on or around 02.11.1994 and it is sought to be explained that the opposite party No. 1 to 3 vide their letter dated 04.6.2000 informed the complainant that the claim under the policy was not payable without assigning any reason as such the claim is well within limitation.
6. In order to establish their respective cases, parties have mostly relied upon the documentary evidence viz. policy documents, correspondence exchanged between the parties, certain orders passed by the Excise Authorities and the survey report of M/s. Digamber Lal Puri & Sons. Affidavit of Shri S.K. Jain, Managing Director of the complainant has been filed on behalf of the complainant while affidavits of Mr. Satish Sharma, Manager of the respondent company has been filed on behalf of the Insurance Company. No affidavit was however, filed on behalf of opposite party No. 4 Bank.
7. We have carefully considered the entire evidence and material brought on record and have heard Mr. S.S. Lingwal, Advocate and learned counsel representing the complainant and Mr. S.M. Tripathi, Advocate learned counsel representing the opposite party No. 1 to 3 but had not the advantage to hear the say of opposite party No. 4 Bank as no one appeared on their behalf at the time of final hearing of the complaint.
8. Going by the preliminary objections taken by the opposite party No. 1 to 3 about the present complaint being time barred, having been filed after the statutory period prescribed under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act), the foremost question which arises for our consideration is as to whether the present complaint has been filed within the prescribed time limitation or is it barred by limitation. Section 24-A of the Act prescribes a period of two years for filing a complaint from the date of accrual of the cause of action before a Consumer Fora. In the case in hand, as per the complainants own showing the theft / burglary in his factory had taken place sometime on or around 30.3.1992 but he got the knowledge of the same only on 11.4.1992 and therefore immediately he lodged the report with the Police and intimated the factum of theft to the insurance company followed by making a formal claim in the sum of Rs. 30,30,000/-. The insurance company appointed a surveyor who inspected the factory and sought for several documents like sales tax returns from 01.4.1991 till the date of occurrence, full details of stocks lying with the complainant particularly its quantity, price etc., as on 31.3.1990.
According to the complainant he supplied the said documents / material to the surveyor but still the surveyor did not assess the loss and the claim was not settled. According to the complainant the final rejection of the claim was made by the insurance company vide a communicated dated 04.6.2000 and the complaint was filed in this Commission on 16.02.2001, i.e. well within a period of two years from the date of final repudiation of the claim.
9. On the other hand Mr. S.M. Tripathi representing the complainant has submitted that as per the complainants own showing his claim was rejected by the insurance company and that he received the rejection of his claim from the insurance company sometimes before 02.11.1994 and therefore the complaint filed in the year 2001 is patently barred by limitation. In this connection he has invited our attention to the averments and allegations made by the complainant in Para 23 of the complaint which reads as under:-
That on receipt of letter of rejection of the claim, and on account of non-satisfactory reply by the opposite party, the complainant vide its letter dated 02.11.1994 approached the Director (Insurance), and Director of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi regarding the settlement of the claim under the above mentioned Insurance Policy and non-payment of the amount of claim by the Opposite Party, but the opposite party did not replied the letter.
10. When we confronted the complainants Managing Director / his counsel with the above averments they attempted to explain that this averment has been made in the complaint inadvertently because the complainant had not received any letter of rejection from the opposite party-Insurance Company before November, 1994 but he presumed that his claim has been rejected / did not find favour with the insurance company and therefore, this averment was made. The explanation appears to be fallacious on the face of it because such a categorical averment about the receipt of the letter of rejection of claim, which in the reckoning of the complainant was not satisfactory, could not have been made in the complaint unless the complainant had received a formal communication about the rejection of his claim. It was contended that no such letter of rejection has been produced by the opposite party. Mr. Tripathi explained that the claim filed in the present complaint has been lost in the office of the insurance company, and so they are not able to produce the said letter. He also submitted that the claim of the complainant was in fact rejected sometime before November, 1994 and therefore, any representations made by the complainant to the functionaries of the Finance / Department of Govt. of India were of no consequence. The fact that those representations had trickled down to the Insurance authorities, they were duty bound to consider the same. Since the complainant had been making representations after representations, the insurance authorities considered the same and the complainant was once again informed vide letter dated 04.6.2000 that this claim has already been rejected. We find merits in this contention because based on the entirety of the facts and circumstances and the report of the Digambar Lal Puri & Sons, surveyors, the insurance company had already rejected the claim of the complainant sometime before 02.11.1994 and therefore, that would be deemed to be the last date when the cause of action for filing the present complaint can be said to have lastly accrued to the complainant for filing the present claim. Making of representations to the higher authorities and making them over to the functionaries of the insurance company which insurance company considered and replied will not extend the period of limitation. The insurance company will be deemed to have done so as a gesture of courtesy rather than any legal obligation, it having already rejected the claim.
11. Having considered the above aspect from various angles and the unequivocal admission made by the complainant in para 23 of the complaint (supra), there is no escape from the conclusion that the claim of the complainant was rejected sometime before 02.11.1994 and since the present complaint was not filed within two years of the said rejection/ repudiation and was filed only in year 2001, the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation and we must dismiss the complaint on this sole ground.
12. After recording the above finding, though it is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the present complaint but in view of the fact that the complaint remained pending in this Commission for almost a decade, we deem it appropriate to consider the present complaint on its merit as well.
13.
Keeping in view the respective cases set up by the parties, the first and the most important question which needs to be considered in the present case is as to whether the complainant has been able to establish any loss occasioned to it on account of alleged theft / burglary which he claims to have taken place in the factory on or about 31.03.1992. In this regard, the complainant besides placing reliance on his own testimony seeks support from the fact that a police report was lodged with police station, Sector 20 Noida and intimation about the incident of theft was passed on to the insurance company and the bank promptly. In this connection, we may observe that the complainant alongwith the complaint had annexed a number of documents (as per the list of documents) which gives description of as many as 36 documents. At Sl. No. 1, is the the documents which describes the photocopy of FIR No. 318142 on 11.4.1992, which were stated to be available at page 17 & 18. However, on perusal of the said document, we find that this is not the photocopy of the copy of FIR No. 318142 dated 11.4.1992 but is the copy of the claim form which the complainant might have submitted to the insurance company with certain annexures. In the last column of page 18 (claim form) there is a mention of FIR copy attached.
Despite our repeatedly asking the complainant to show us the copy of the said FIR, he failed to pinpoint any such documents however, subsequently alongwith the affidavit of Mr. S.K. Jain, a copy of a certificate purportedly having been issued by the police station at Sector, 20, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida dated 27.4.2011 has been produced which reads as under:
This is to certify that a FIR No. 216/92 dated 11.04.1992 was registered U/S 380 IPC in this police station against unknown.
On investigation as the material or culprit could not be traced and on account of the same the case on investigation was closed vide Final Report No. 180/92 dated 27.05.1992. On account of non-availability of record the file of FR has been consigned to record room.
14. The description of the FIR given in the above certificate is FIR No. 216/92 dated 11.04.1992 but as per the complainant the copy of FIR No. was 318142 which do not tally. Curiously, one more document purportedly to be copy of the report dated 30.3.1992 has been produced on record. According to the complainant he learnt about the theft in this factory only on 11.4.1992 and after visiting and assessing the factory premises, he made a report to the police on the same date i.e. 11.4.1992. If that was the position how a report dated 30.3.199 could have been lodged by the complainant with the police station and that too against Prabhat and Ram Singh, Chowkidars. Despite giving several opportunities to the complainant, it failed to explain these intriguing circumstances.
15. As regards the incident of theft, the surveyor Digambar Lal Puri & Sons have made scathing observations and findings based on that arrived at the following conclusion:
1. Assured have been avoiding to give us the inspection of the site and they have done so on 2nd May, 1992 whereas the mishap has reportedly been noticed on the 30th of March, 1992. They have also not provided us documents and / or information asked for proper processing the loss.
2.
Assured have not provided us the sheet attached to Excise Departments Seizure Memo in which Excise Department have given the details of quantities of items seized.
3. Assured have not declared the sales of Rs. 7,10,507.35 to Sales Tax Department.
4. Assured have not provided us any details of Bank outstanding etc., as on the date of mishap.
5. As per Police Report, Police authorities have registered a case under Section 380 IPC which deals in theft in DWELLING HOUSE. Moreover Assured suspects his ex-employee Chowkidar Mr. Ram Singh involved in the mishap. Both these are specifically not covered under policy of Insurance issued by the Insurers.
6. As per Assured goods weighing over 76 Tons have been stolen with require 8 Trucks to carry away the goods. No marks of trucks and / or any other Vehicle have been noticed. The main Gate lock was intact till our representative arrival. This leads us to conclude that goods, if any have been removed from factory premises in small batches is over a long period of time.
7. The consumption of raw material i.e. 11,223 Kgs. of Aluminium Wire and 13,202 Kgs. Of PVC compound in the month of January, 1992 appears to be an afterthought for adjustments in Balance sheet and / or preparing their claim as the factory was closed since April, 1991.
8. In view of heavy consumption of raw material for manufacturing 2,98,717 Meters of PVC wire which has been sold at Rs. 7,10,507/- their consumption works out to be 321.78% of sales value 9details as per Annexure-M) against 87.16% in the year 1990-91 (as per details given in Annexure M-1).
Moreover, they have not provided for any wages and cost of packing material in the trading account for the year 1991-92. This does not provide the correct picture of the stolen stocks. The books of account and stocks need to be thoroughly checked from 1988-89 and on ward when the goods were seized by Excise Department by an Independent Chartered Accountant and then prepare the Balance sheet and Trading account for the year 1991-92. Assured is not prepared to show the books of accounts and / or stocks.
9. As already suggested in our preliminary report No. Bn/24/92 dated 23.5.1992, we still hold the view that this case should be got investigated from some Independent Agency and further detailed verifications of records since 1988-89 to the date of mishap be got examined / audited from an Independent Chartered Accountant.
16. In our view the above enumerated observations/findings circumstances, unerringly point out that either there was no incident of theft at the factory of the complainant or even if a theft had taken place it was by the security guards (chowkidars) detailed by the complainant to guard their factory rather than by any outsider which is not covered under the Policy. In any case, the claim lodged by the complainant was much in excess of the loss occasioned to the complainant and in that way the claim can be termed as fraudulent.
17. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that in view of the material placed on record i.e. copy of the FIR, the orders of the Central Excise Department etc., there should not be any doubt that the large quantity of PVC insulation, PVC compound, Aluminum cables, PVC copper cables etc., were lying at the premises of the complainant factory at the time of theft. In this regard he has invited our attention to the quantification of the loss made by the surveyor in its report dated 21.12.1994. It is true that the surveyor had assessed the value of the goods which were claimed to be stolen at Rs. 22,73,042/- but that assessment of the surveyor is not the actual assessment of loss but it is contingent on the conditions mentioned by the surveyor viz the quantities of the goods to be assumed to be correct as per the complainants version and the value given by it. The surveyor gave the remarks that the said quantification did not represent the correct picture of the loss in view of major shortcomings and the exact position of the loss can be worked out after the books of account and/or stocks are checked and verified from the year 1988-89 to the date of mishap by the independent Auditors. Therefore in our view the above quantification of the loss cannot be said to be the quantification of the net loss suffered by the complainant.
18. Our attention was then invited to the report of the complainants own Auditors-Dinesh Jain & Associates where closing stock of the raw material, finished goods, semi-finished goods and scrap is stated to be worth of Rs. 29,00,597/- as on 31st March, 1992. We cannot accept this report on its face value because the surveyor and the concerned Excise Officer had pointed out several discrepancies in the said statement on the scrutiny of the balance sheet submitted alongwith the report of the above named auditors.
19. As per the complainants own showing after the raid / inspection of the Central Excise Department, the stock of goods lying at his factory were seized by the authorities of the Excise Department and thereafter, the factory was closed / became non-functional for about two years prior to the peril. According to the complainant the goods seized by the Central Excise Department were still lying in the factory and were in the custody of the complainant. In any case, the submission is that the goods were released by the Excise Authorities in favour of the complainant vide an order dated 20th September, 1990 passed by the Collector of Excise, Meerut.
Some findings appearing in that order would make curious reading:
i) M/s. Hansa Wires Products (P) Ltd., A-30, Sector-VI, Noida, were operating clandestinely with a willful intent, without correctly and properly maintaining any account private or statutory and the following records which were produced on 07.11.1988 were not genuine and wer (illegible) subsequently to 26.10.1988 as the same did not bear any authentication of any Central Excise Office;
ii) M/s.
Hansa Wires Products (P) Ltd., A-30, Sector-VI Noida failed to produce other records such as RG-23A, Part-1 for copper wire steel wire, PVC resins, PVC compound and aluminium wires RG-23A-PC II and P.L.A. on 26.10.1988, 27.10.1988 and 28.10.1988 respectively for inspection (illegible), central Excise Officer. These records were produced on 7.11.1988 by Shri S.K. Jain, Managing Director. In (illegible) communications and summons issued to Shri S.K. Jain, Managing Director of the Unit avoided to appear before the Superintendent, Central Excise, (illegible) 7.11.88 and Shri Sushil Kumar, authorized signatory appeared only on 28.10.1988 without producing any Central Excise records for inspection.
iii) Shri Sushil Kumar, Authorized signature of M/s. Hansa Wires Products (P) Ltd., Noida along with Shri S.K. Jain, Managing Director of the said unit were present at Noida on 26.10.1988 for getting the Central Excise records pre-authenticated in back date by Shri S.K. Singh, Inspector.
This fact has been witnessed and confirmed by Shri Anil Kumar Gautam of M/s. Vijay Cable Industries, Noida in his statement dated 28.10.1988.
(iv) Shri S.K. Jain, Managing Director, M/s. Hansa Wires Products (P) Ltd., R/o BG-46, Shalimar Bagh, East, Delhi-52 in collusion with M/s. Hansa Wire Products (P) Ltd. G-30, Sector-IV, Noida have been manufacturing and storing excisable goods under a well-planned conspiracy with willful intent to defraud the Government of its revenue in respect of goods which were seized on 26.10.1988 for which no records whatsoever was maintained and produced before the Central Excise Officers for inspection on 26.10.1988.
It therefore, appears that M/s. Hansa Wires Products (P) Ltd., Noida and Shri S.K. Jain, Managing Director, have contravened the provisions of Rule 53, 57G, 173G and 226 of Central Excise Rule 1944 and the seized finished excisable goods and the raw material/inputs are liable for confiscation and they have rendered themselves liable for penal action under Rule 173-Q.
20. Interestingly in the said order, one of the finding recorded is about actual shortage of the goods and is noted as under:
I have gone through the records of the case and averments and submissions made by the party. My findings are as under:
M/s. Hansa Wire Products (P) Ltd., (HWPL) Noida came to the adverse notice of the Department, when the Preventive Branch of Meerut Collectorate visited the Unit on 13.8.88 and registered a case of seizure / offence of evasion of Central Excise duty in so far as they did not maintain up-to-date Central Excise Account and 10,000 meters of 1.5 sq. mm Twin Stand P.V.C. insulated were found in factory premises in excess of whatever was recorded in RG-1 Account and the following four products were found short.
S.No. Description Qty. as per RG1 Qty. as per physical verification, trs.
Shortage deducted (Mtrs.) Value (Rs.)
1.
PVC Insulated Aluminium cable of size 10 Sq. mm x 4 core 13800 7000 (70 bundles of 100 mt. each 6800 61,200/-
2. PVC copper cable of size 6 sq. mm, x 1 core 95230 NIL 95230 2,85,690/-
3. RCSR Conductor Rabbit 6/1/3.35 mm 19340 NIL 19340 1,16,040/-
4. PVC insulated Aluminium cable of size 4 sq. mm x 2 core 250640 47300 (433 bundles of 100 meters each and 80 bundles of 50 meters) 203340 4,57,515/-
21. The above findings would show that there was shortage of goods about Rs. 9.00 lacs although they were shown in the stores. We are therefore of the opinion that no reliance can be placed on the statement of Accounts, stock registers etc., produced by the complainant as authentic piece of evidence so as to reflect the loss suffered by the complainant. Therefore, even if it is assumed for a moment that there has been theft / burglary at the factory of the complainant, the complainant ventured to make a highly inflated claim simply with a view to get undue enrichment which is nothing but a fraudulent claim.
22. Having considered the entire evidence and material brought on record and respective contentions raised by the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has miserably failed to establish either the factum of loss or its extent by means of cogent and reliable evidence. As a consequence, we hold that the opposite party-insurance company has not committed any deficiency in service by rejecting the insurance claim of the complainant and therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.
23. In the result and for the above stated reasons we dismiss the complaint, leaving the parties to bear their own cost.
....
(R. C. JAIN, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER (S. K. NAIK) MEMBER SB/Court 2 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 55 OF 2001 Hansa Wire Product Pvt. Ltd. ........ Complainant(s) Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. . Opposite Party (ies) BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER Placed below is the draft order in the above referred matter for your perusal, concurrence / suggestions, if any.
(R.C. JAIN, J.) Presiding Member 14.11.2011 Honble Mr. S.K. Naik, Member