National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Wilson Home Appliances vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. on 10 December, 2020
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 959 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 22/09/2015 in Complaint No. 207/2010 of the State Commission Maharashtra) 1. WILSON HOME APPLIANCES PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF MADANLAL JAIN, SHOP NO. 15/16, HARYALI INDUSTRIAL CENTRE, OPP. PAPER MILL, L.B.S. MARG, SURYA NAGAR, VIKROLI WEST, MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT D.O. 1127000, 22, 2ND FLOOR, MITTAL CHAMBERS, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-4000021 MAHARASHTRA 2. M/S. GARG & ASSICATES HAVING ASSRESS AT A-402, SUNFLOWER NATASHA PARK, MIRA ROAD (E), MUMBAI-401107 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DINESH SINGH,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant : Ms. Manisha T. Karia, Advocate For the Respondent : For the Respondent No. 1 :Mr. S. M. Tripathi, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 2 :Ex parte
Dated : 10 Dec 2020 ORDER
ORDER
HON'BLE MR. DINESH SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER Taken up through video conferencing.
1. This Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the 'Act 1986'), challenging the Order dated 22.09.2015 in C. C. No. 207 of 2010 passed by The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (the 'State Commission').
2. Heard arguments from Ms. Manisha T. Karia, Advocate, learned Counsel for the Appellant (the 'Complainant Firm') and Mr. S. M. Tripathi, Advocate, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 (the 'Insurance Co.').
Vide Order dated 28.08.2017, the Respondent No. 2 (the 'Surveyor') was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.
Perused the material on record including inter alia the impugned Order dated 22.09.2015 of the State Commission and the Memorandum of Appeal.
3. In the interest of justice, to settle the matter on merit, the delay of 26 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
4. Admitted facts, relevant for disposal of this appeal, are that the Complainant Firm took an insurance policy to cover its plant and machinery, electrical installations and stock-in-trade. The premium was paid. The policy was valid. An incident of fire took place on 24.12.2005. The Insurance Co. was intimated. Survey was conducted. The Complainant Firm made a claim of Rs. 17,00,000/-. The Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Co. assessed the loss at Rs. 1,54,500/-. The Complainant Firm failed to submit the relevant record for verification, as mentioned in the Surveyor's Report. The Insurance Co. filed the claim as 'no claim'. Aggrieved, the Complainant Firm professed a Complaint before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 22.09.2015 allowed the Complaint at the loss assessed by the Insurance Co.'s Surveyor i.e. at Rs. 1,54,500/- and awarded the said amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Complaint i.e. 06.12.2010 to be made good within 30 days of its Order failing which the rate of interest would be 12% per annum.
5. The State Commission dismissed the Insurance Co.'s argument of 'no claim' and allowed the claim at par with the loss assessed by the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Co. It awarded the said amount (Rs.1,54,500/-) with reasonable interest at reasonable terms (9% per annum within 30 days of the Order, 12% per annum thereafter).
The Complainant Firm appealed before this Commission for enhancement in compensation, specifically for accepting its claimed loss of Rs.17,00,000/-.
6. Ms. Manisha T. Karia, learned counsel for the Complainant Firm argued that the Surveyor had not conducted its investigation and assessment correctly.
7. Mr. S. M. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the Insurance Co. argued that the Surveyor had made a correct assessment of the loss. The Insurance Co., though it initially filed the claim as 'no claim' in the absence of relevant record being furnished for verification by the Complainant Firm, has now complied with the Award made vide the State Commission's impugned Order of 22.09.2015.
8. Investigation and Survey by an insurance company are fundamental in determining the amount payable to the insured. An insurance company is duty bound to appoint its surveyor in accordance with the provisions of The Insurance Act, 1938 (Section 64 UM Surveyors or loss assessors specifically refers). Essentially, its surveyor has to possess the prescribed qualifications, it is accountable, inter alia also to the regulator. A Survey cannot be disregarded or dismissed without cogent reasons (it, but, also goes concomitantly that the rationale and computation recorded in the Survey should be convincing and pass credence in scrutiny).
9. The onus, [a] of showing that the Report of the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Co. was flawed and [b] of showing that actually in fact the loss was Rs. 17,00,000/-, was on the Complainant Firm, which onus it failed to discharge.
10. The State Commission has passed a reasoned order, fairly dismissing the Insurance Co.'s argument of 'no claim' and awarding the loss assessed by the Insurance Co.'s Surveyor along with reasonable interest at reasonable terms. No reason is visible to occasion interfering with the Award made by the State Commission, specifically no cogent material is available to accept the loss of Rs.17,00,000/- claimed by the Complainant Firm or to assess / enhance the loss to a value higher than that assessed by the Insurance Co.'s Surveyor.
11. The Appeal fails.
The State Commission's impugned Order is upheld and confirmed.
12. The Registry is directed to send a copy each of this Order to all parties within three days.
...................... DINESH SINGH PRESIDING MEMBER