Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

National Insurance Company Ltd. vs 1. Vaibhav Industries, on 2 September, 2013

                             1                  F.A. No. 161-07

MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

                                                         Date of filing: 03.01.2007
                                                         Date of Order: 02.09.2013

FIRST APPEAL NO.161 OF 2007
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 113 OF 2004
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: JALNA.

National Insurance Company Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager,
Hazari Chambers, Station Road,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.                            ... Appellant

       VERSUS
1. Vaibhav Industries,
Through its Partner,
Suresh Ramdhan Agrawal,
R/o. Plot No. B-11,
Old M.I.D.C. Jalna,
Dist. Jalna.
2. The Jintur (Sunderlal Sawji)
Urban Co-op.Bank Ltd.
Branch Jalna.
3. State of Maharashtra
Through Collector,
(Garpith Committee, Jalna)                               ... Respondents

Coram :   Shri. S.M. Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.

Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.

Shri. K. B. Gawali, Hon'ble Member.

Present: Adv. Shri. D. V. Soman for appellant.

Adv. Shri. P. D. Suryavanshi for Respondent No.1 None for Respondent No.2.

Adv. Shri. Anand Zha for Respondent No.3.

- :: JUDGEMENT :: -

(Delivered on 2nd September, 2013) Per Mrs. Uma S. Bora, Hon`ble Member

1. National Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager, Aurangabad challenges in this appeal judgment and order passed by District Forum, Jalna on 20.12.2006 in consumer complaint No.113/2004.

2. Facts in nutshell are as under:

Complainant Vaibhav Industries through its partner Suresh Ramdhan Agrawal, R/o. Jalna filed the complaint claiming insurance amount. It is stated in the complaint that, he is having business of manufacturing of oil and cake from oil seeds, in partnership at plot No. B-11, 0ld MIDC Area, Jalna in the name and styled as "Vaibhav Industries". The complainant had obtained "Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy" bearing No. 270600/310004 for the period 02.04.2002 to 01.04.2003. According to said policy, subject matter of insurance was-

Rs.10,00,000/- Building of Vaibhav Industries (office & oil mill) Rs.15,00,000/- Plant and Machinery & Electrical install Rs. 1,00,000/- Furniture & Fixture (FFA) Rs.20,00,000/- Stock of Oil Mill Raw Material & Finished Product Fire Spl/Perils/EQ/RSMTD.

Said policy was obtained through Jintur Urban Co-operative Bank. It is stated by complainant that on the fateful day of 08.04.2002 there was hail storm in the area of MIDC where the factory is situated. It is found that one hail storm was approximately of 200 to 400 gms of weight and due to heavy hail storm tin shed of the factory and stock stored in the godown as well as in another part of factory was badly damaged. Therefore complainant approached to insurance company and claimed Rs.2,45,500/- as estimated loss. Revenue authorities conducted the panachnama and they also assessed the loss to Rs.4,00,000/-. After getting the intimation about the said incident insurance company appointed surveyor Shri. Rahul Jadhav, who assessed the loss and investigated the incident,. He orally submitted that loss is approximately of Rs.2 to 2.5 lakh. At that time local branch manager of the Bank was also present. But on 09.07.2002 complainant received the sanction letter of the claim to the tune of Rs.35,000/- only. Therefore he approached to Forum and claimed Rs.2,59,000/- in total.

3. Appellant/original opponent appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim.

It is submitted by appellant that after intimation of the incident immediately surveyor Shri. Rahul Jadhav was appointed to scrutinize the matter and assess the loss. Accordingly surveyor submitted his report and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.35,000/- which is correct and proper. It is further stated by respondent that the full and final settlement voucher was also issued in favour of complainant but without accepting the same complainant approached to Forum. Therefore complaint be dismissed.

4. After hearing both parties Forum directed appellant to pay Rs.2,45,000/ with 6 % interest and Rs.5000/- for mental agony.

5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order insurance company came in appeal. Adv. Shri. D. V. Soman appeared for appellant. Adv. Shri. P. D. Suryavanshi appeared for Respondent No.1/original complainant. None appeared for Respondent No.2 Jintur Urban Co-operative Bank. Adv. Shri. Anand Zha appeared for Respondent No.3 State Government of Maharashtra. Both the counsel submitted written notes of argument. It is submitted by Adv. Soman that after receiving information about the incident of storm, surveyor Shri. Rahul Jadhav was appointed to assess the loss. After visiting the spot and scrutinizing various aspects surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.35,000/- which was correct and proper. Accordingly full and final settlement voucher was also issued to the complainant/respondent. But complainant refused to accept the same and instead of approaching higher authorities of the insurance company complainant approached to Forum which is not legal and proper. It is further submitted by Adv. Soman that District Forum by ignoring the survey report granted the compensation to the tune of Rs.2,45,000/- by relying on panchanama conducted by Revenue authorities which is not correct and legal. Because both the authorities are not expert in the respective field. It is further stated by Adv. Soman that notice of said panchanamas was never issued to the insurance company therefore said panchanama is not binding on them. Therefore when the survey report is on record District Forum ought not to have granted compensation as per estimate submitted by the complainant.

6. Adv. Shri. Suryavanshi submitted that surveyor while assessing loss ignored the factual position that stock of cotton seed and oil was damaged due to hail storm. While assessing the stock surveyor did not consider the same. District Forum rightly granted the compensation as per the panchanamas immediately conducted by Revenue authorities. In support of his contention he relied on- Sri. Ramlingeshwara Poultry Farm Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. It is held by Hon'ble National Commission that, we failed to understand when the entire building collapsed and suffered heavy loss due to cyclone, how one can argue that the seeds stored therein not been affected.

7. We thus heard submission of both the counsel and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that policy was obtained for "Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy". Sum 4 insured through said policy is near about Rs.45,00,000/- and for the stock of oil mill policy of Rs. 20,00,000/- was purchased. It has recorded by surveyor himself that hail stone showered on the factory shed were of 200 to 400 grams of weight, but surveyor while assessing the loss mentioned in the report as fire surveyor report and accordingly assessed the loss on assumption and presumption. It is natural process that hail stone of 400 gms will convert into water and might have caused damage to cotton seeds. But surveyor ignored the said loss. While assessing the loss to the stock he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.31,781/-. In fact, complainant claimed Rs.35,000/- for the tin shed only. But surveyor by ignoring the actual loss caused to the complainant assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.35,000/- only in total. In our view, District Forum rightly allowed the complaint by relying on the panchanama conducted by Revenue authorities. We do not want to interfere the reasoning recorded by the Forum. Hence the following order.

-:: ORDER ::-

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. No order as to cost.

            (K. B. Gawali)   Mrs. Uma S. Bora)            (S.M. Shembole)
               Member            Member                Presiding Judicial Member
Kalyankar