State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Riga Sugar Co. Ltd. on 24 May, 2013
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission
West Bengal
BHABANI BHAVAN
(GROUND FLOOR)
31, BELVEDERE ROAD,
ALIPORE
KOLKATA 700 027
S.C. CASE NO FA/607/2012
(Arisen out of Order
dated 24/02/2012 in Case No.CC/198/2009 of Unit-I, Kolkata District DF)
DATE OF FILING : 12.09.2012 DATE
OF ORDER: 24.05.2013
APPELLANT : 1. RELINACE
GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD,
HIMALAYA
HOUSE
38B, J.L. NEHRU ROAD
P.S. SHAKESPEARE SARANI
KOLKATA-700 071
RESPONDENT : RIGA
SUGAR CO. LTD.
14, NETAJI SUBHAS ROAD
P.S. HARE STREET
KOLKATA 700 001.
BEFORE
HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Debasis Bhattacharya.
HONBLE MEMBER : Sri
Jagannath
Bag.
FOR THE APPELLANT
: 1. Mr. Sujay Kumar Basu, Ld. Advocate,
FOR THE RESPONDENT : 1.
Mr.Sankar Mukhopadhyay, Ld. Advocate
________________________________________________________________________
Sri Debasis Bhattacharya , Member
This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.02.2012 in Case No. 198/2009 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Unit-I, Kolkata.
The case of the Complainant in its petition of complaint is that it took an Industrial Care Policy No.1501072615000010 of the OP for the period from 01.08.2007 to 31.07.2008, and paid a sum of Rs.10,76,150/- as premium for which the OP issued proper receipt on 31.07.2007 (sic). A huge flood water inundated the factory premises of the Complainant on 30.07.2007 at about 09.30 a.m., for which it suffered a loss of Rs.14,75,289/-. It was informed to the OP immediately over phone, and further by way of submitting a claim on 27.11.2007. The OP appointed their Surveyor, M/s Cunningham International (P) Ltd., Kolkata, to assess the loss, who submitted a report on 19.09.2007. As the OP did not settle the claim, the Complainant vide their letters dated 12.12.2008 and 29.01.2009 requested the OP to settle the claim as soon as possible, and thereafter issued legal notices dated 06.03.2009 and 06.04.2009, claiming the balance amount of claim within 15 days, all in vain. Accordingly, the complaint case.
On the other hand, the case of the OP in its W.V. is that M/s Cunningham & Lindsey was appointed as independent Surveyor to assess the loss sustained by the insured/Complainant. From the Report by such Surveyor, OP came to know that the total loss assessed is Rs.5,53,308/-. Accordingly, such amount has been paid to the Complainant by cheque No.291975 dated 17.07.2009, who also accepted the same without raising any objection, which fact has been willfully suppressed by the Complainant. So, the OP is not liable to pay any further compensation to the Complainant. There is no deficiency in service at all on their part. Accordingly, the case be dismissed.
It is to be considered if the impugned order suffers from any anomaly so as to reverse the same.
Decision with reasons.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that Rs.5,53,308/- as per recommendation of the Surveyor making a depreciation of 50% was deposited by the Insurance Company and the same is within the knowledge of the Complainant who made suppression of such fact. But, the Ld. District Forum raised the quantum by making the depreciation at 25% of the gross loss calculated by the Surveyor at Rs.2,91,484/-, exercising a jurisdiction not vested in it.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has made out that surreptitiously and arbitrarily, the Insurance Company has paid the amount to the Banker. There has been a previous report of the Surveyor which was not produced by the Insurance Company and there is no reason for making a revised report by the Surveyor. There is no policy condition to the effect of charging depreciation @ 50%. It is a repairing claim and bills have been produced to substantiate the claim. So, such arbitrary deduction of 50% on account of depreciation is a tangible one and uncalled for. Further, he has submitted that the petition of complaint has been filed before the Ld. District Forum on 28.05.2009, but the OP sent a cheque of Rs.5,53,308/- during pendency of the said complaint case, which was without knowledge of the Complainant and at its back. It has also been submitted that soon after knowledge of the Complainant, it has sent a letter to the Insurance Company on 19.08.2009 which was delivered by hand on the same day stating that the cheque of Rs.5,53,308/- was sent without any covering letter out of the claim amount of Rs.14,75,289/-, excluding other charges, which totalled Rs.16,00,289/- and requested the Insurance Company to send the balance claim amount.
Admittedly, Rs.5,53,308/- was given by the Insurance Company by a cheque. It is the specific case of the Respondent that there was no justification for sending the said cheque of Rs.5,53,308/- by the Appellant after deduction of 50% as depreciation. Ld. District Forum has considered the said point vis--vis the final report (revised) dated 22.05.2009 in this respect and found favour with the Complainants case and reduced the depreciation to 25% from 50%, and calculated the sum at Rs.2,91,484/-, which is payable by the Insurance company to the Complainant. The 25% deduction on account of depreciation by the Ld. District Forum is wholesome and is sustained. But, the calculation of 25% was made from the gross loss calculated by the Surveyor of Rs.11,65,936/-, which is not actually the case and position. The depreciation was effected on the total replacement/restoration cost of Rs.10,17,507.50. So, the amount of 25% depreciation will naturally come down if calculated from the amount of Rs.10,17,507.50, which should be Rs.2,54,377/-, and not Rs.2,91,484/-, which the OP, i.e., Appellant is to pay to the Complainant, i.e., Respondent. Other parts of the impugned order will remain as before.
There have been lapses on the part of the Complainant in that it made out in para 3 of the petition of complaint of a policy for the period from 01.08.2007 to 31.07.2008, for which a sum of Rs.10,76,150/- was paid as premium under proper receipt dated 31.07.2007, while the incident according to para 5 of the petition of complaint occurred on 30.07.2007 at about 09.30a.m., which is at variance with the period of insurance. But, from the survey report, it is found that the Industrial Care Policy of the Complainant bears No.1501-26-15-000002-6 for the period from 01.08.2006 to 31.07.2007, and the time, day and date of loss mentioned in such report is at around 05-00 AM on Saturday, the 28th July, 2007. In any case, the fact of inundation by flood water for the loss of the Complainant is not disputed and also that the Complainant had coverage of insurance for the loss at the relevant time.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with the above-mentioned modification of the impugned order.
MEMBER MEMBER