National Consumer Disputes Redressal
National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Sri Chakravarthi Enterprises on 22 November, 2011
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO.3053 OF 2007 (From the order dated 20.3.07 in Appeal No.746/04 of the State Commission, A.P.) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Petitioner Versus Sri Chakravarthi Enterprises Respondent BEFORE : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr.Yogesh Malhotra, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr.K.Maruthi Rao, Advocate Pronounced on 22nd November, 2011 ORDER
PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER National Insurance Co.Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) has filed this revision petition against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in which Sri Chakaravarthi Enterprises and another were Respondents.
In his complaint before the District Forum, Respondent stated that he had got his two rice mills including buildings, stocks in godown and stocks in open, insured with the Petitioner/Insurance Company from 04.05.1996 to 03.05.1997 for a sum of Rs.23 lakhs against fire and other risks which included storms, cyclone, typhoons, tempest, hurricane, tornado, flood and inundation. During the validity of the policy, on 06.11.1996 there was a cyclone as a result of which the buildings of the rice mills along with stocks of paddy, boiled rice, raw rice, broken rice, bran, empty gunnies were completely damaged. Therefore, on 07.11.1996 i.e. the next day, Respondent sent a telegram to the Petitioner/Insurance Company bringing these facts to their notice and requested for settling the insurance claim. Respondent also personally apprised the Petitioner about the extent of damage. A representative of the Petitioner/Insurance Company visited the premises on 14.11.1996 and 15.11.1996 to inspect the damage caused and also collected photos of the same. On 22.1.1996, a representative again visited the premises along with the Surveyor. However, instead of making any assessment of the damage caused, they made unlawful demands which the Respondent refused to accept and informed the Petitioner/Insurance Company about the conduct of the Surveyor. The Petitioner assured him that the claim would be settled on the basis of documents produced and there was no cause of worry. Respondent, however, decided to get the estimate of loss certified by the Mandal Revenue Officer(M.R.O.) and thereafter submitted a claim to the Petitioner. Despite legal notice, Petitioner/Insurance Company did not settle the claim and also did not respond till September 3, 1999 when the Respondent was informed that his claim has been repudiated on the grounds that there was no assessable loss as the Respondent had not been able to substantiate the loss caused due to the cyclone either through credible documentary evidence or through presenting the damaged stocks for physical verification and inspection by the Petitioners surveyors.
Since, this was factually not correct Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that the Petitioner be directed to pay Respondents an amount of Rs.4,90,000/- towards insurance claim, Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and pain suffered and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation costs.
Petitioner/Insurance Company denied the above contentions and stated that the Surveyor had after due physical verification of the Petitioners premises clearly indicated in his report that the Respondent had failed to present the stocks said to have been damaged for physical verification and even the photographs given by the Respondent to the Petitioners surveyor did not indicate the presence of rainwater or any adverse effect on the stocks.
Petitioner/Insurance Company also verified the facts through other independent sources and concluded that no assessable loss was admissible in the instant case and the claim was rightly repudiated.
The District Forum after hearing both parties and considering the evidence on record dismissed the complaint on the grounds that even before the District Forum, the Respondent had not been able to produce any evidence to show that large quantities of paddy, rice etc. which were stocked in the premises of the two rice mills and were so extensively damaged that they could not be made available for physical verification nor any photographs were produced in evidence which could help the Respondent in establishing any loss to the rice mills and the stocks. Further, Respondent had not be able to produce any proof regarding the alleged unreasonable demands made by the Petitioners surveyor on him. Regarding the certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the District Forum observed that it was probably issued without physical verification by the above authority. Therefore, no reliance could be placed on the certificate of the Mandal Revenue Officer to substantiate the insurance claim.
Therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated.
Aggrieved by this order, Respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission which partially allowed the appeal by observing that the District Forum erred in not giving due weightage to the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer which showed that there was damage caused to the paddy, rice etc. which were stored in the premises and further the conduct of the Surveyor in not verifying the Register during inspection and giving a report that there was no assessable loss is suspect, particularly since the Petitioner/Insurance Company had itself admitted before the District Forum that it had written several letters of clarification to the surveyor in respect of the report submitted by him.
Petitioner should instead have appointed a second surveyor. Also there was a delay in submitting the final report by the surveyor from which an adverse inference can be drawn. The State Commission further observed that while the damaged stocks as per the Mandal Revenue Officers report appears to be excessive, keeping in view the circumstances of the case and the extract of Register B duly certified by the revenue officials, Respondent is entitled to an amount of Rs.1 lakh towards insurance claim along with interest @ 9% from the date of repudiation of the claim till payment as well as Rs.2,000/- as costs.
Hence, the present revision.
Counsel for both parties made oral submissions essentially reiterating the issued as presented by the two parties before the Fora below. Learned Counsel for Petitioner pointed out in this connection that as per the report of the Surveyor, which is a credible piece of evidence, there was no proof of loss caused to the Respondents stocks because of the cyclone and no cogent proof had been produced by the Respondent to support his case or that the Surveyor had made any unreasonable demands because of which any adverse report has been given. Counsel for Respondent on the other hand stated that as observed by the State Commission, he had produced the evidence of the Mandal Revenue Officers report who is a Government revenue authority in support of his case. Further, adverse inference can justifiably be drawn by the delay on the part of the Surveyor in giving his report.
We have considered the submissions made by both learned Counsel and have gone through the evidence on record. We note that the cyclone which according to the Respondent, destroyed his stocks occurred on 06.11.1996 and Surveyor visited the site soon after i.e. on 14.11.1996. The Surveyor in his report has observed that at that time no stocks were made available for inspection because the Respondent had informed the Surveyor that the damaged paddy had been disposed of immediately through processing i.e. milling and the stocks of rice had also been dispatched on 11.11.1996 because the permit to transport it was expiring on 19.11.1996. We find it difficult to accept this contention because the Respondent was expected to make available at least some stocks for inspection in order to settle the claim especially since the Surveyor had visited the site within a few days. The Surveyor has further observed that from the photographs produced by the Respondent, it was not possible for him to conclude that the cyclone/rain water had affected the stocks because the rice appeared to be unaffected. In the black and white photographs, some roof sheets were found missing but it could not be ascertained from these photograph whether these were taken before or after the occurrence of the cyclonic rains.
It is well established that the report of the Surveyor is a credible piece of evidence unless proved otherwise. In the instant case, we find that the Respondent has not been able to produce any credible evidence to controvert the findings in the Surveyors report. Even in the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer filed by the Respondent in support of his case and relied upon by the State Commission, the Mandal Revenue Officer does not indicate anywhere in his report that he has given this certificate based on an inspection conducted by him or by his officers. There is also no evidence to substantiate the allegations of the Respondent that the Surveyors gave an unfavourable report because Respondent did not pay the bribe demanded by them. The District Forum which is the first court of fact had on the basis of evidence produced before, through a well-reasoned order not accepted the Respondents contention in the absence of any independent credible evidence to support his case. We see no reason to disagree with the findings of the District forum. We, therefore, set aside the order of the State Commission and restore the order of the District Forum. The revision petition is allowed and the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
...
(ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT Sd/-
..
(VINEETA RAI) MEMBER /sks/