National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Pentagaon Steel Pvt. Ltd. vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. on 5 May, 2010
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 235 OF 2000 M/s. Pentagaon Steel Pvt. Ltd., At P.O. Konisi, District Ganjam represented through its Managing Director, Sh. Ashok Kumar Agarwal Complainant Versus 1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., New India Assurance Building, 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort Mumbai-400 001, Represented through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director 2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Alok Bharati Complex (1st Floor), Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Represented through its Regional Manager 3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Giri Road, Berhampur, Represented through its Divisional Manager 4. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Tata Benz Square, Berhampur-760005, Represented through its Branch Manager Opposite Parties BEFORE : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, MEMBER For the Complainant : Mr. S.M. Suri, Adv. For the Opposite parties: Mr. P.K. Seth, Adv. PRONOUNCED ON_5th May, 2010 ORDER
JUSTICE K.S. GU PTA, MEMBER Complaint was filed, inter alia, alleging that the complainant set up an industrial unit with semi Automatic Steel Rolling Mill with a production capacity of 18000 M.T. per annum at Tulu Road, Konisi in the Coastal district of Ganjam in the state of Orissa in the year 1998. Unit consists of reheating furnace, 7 stands with rolls and accessories, two drives of 450 HP and 300 HP motors, reduction gear box, pinion stands, 32 KV sub-station, workshop, labour rest shed, pump house, lighting towers, factory and furnace shed, two oil tanks, weigh bridge, office building butted and bounded with red bricks boundary wall with cement plaster. Unit was insured with Berhampur Branch of the New India Assurance Company Ltd. opposite party under Fire Policy C for the period 2.11.1998 to 1.11.1999 for Rs. 2 crore for fixed assets. It was alleged that in the month of October, 1999 a super cyclone hit the coastal belt of state of Orissa with the wind pressure of about 200 km. per hour. Unit being very near to Gopalpur Sea Coast, the shed, boundary wall, workshop, panel room, furnace, motors, twisting machine, weigh bridge, oil tanks, electricity, labour rest shed, electrical equipments, light fittings etc. were badly damaged in the super cyclone. Complainant lodged a claim with the said Branch of the Insurance Co. It got a detailed assessment of the damage caused done through J.M. Khadanga, Chartered engineer who assessed loss at Rs. 40,07,446/-. To assess the loss the complainant appopinted another surveyor - S.K. Mohanty who assessed loss at Rs. 36,54,600/-. Two surveyors- S.K. Panda and Sarat Chandra Senapati appointed by the opposite party made separate reports. The opposite party-Insurance Co. settled the loss at Rs. 4,98,531/- and accordingly issued the loss vouchers in duplicate to the General Manager, Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) from whom the complainant had availed finance. Complainant was required to sign the vouchers in full and final settlement of the claim which the complainant did under protest. It was alleged that insurance Co. is liable to indemnify the claim amount of Rs. 66.68 lakhs and pay compensation of an equal amount for the delay caused in settlement of claim. It was prayed that Insurance Co. may be directed to release the claim amount with penal interest and cost.
Opposite party-Insurance Co. contested the complaint by filing written version. Issuance of fire policy C for Rs. 2 crore for fixed assets for the period 2.11.1998 to 1.11.1999 in favour of the complainant was not denied. However, it was alleged that damage to the complainants unit was caused by a cyclone which lasted for about two hours on 17.10.1999. Super cyclone occurring on 29th-30th October, 1999 did not hit the area in which the industrial unit of the complaint is situated. Reports of J.M. Khadanga, Chartered engineer and S.K. Mohanty, Surveyor appointed by the complainant about the assessment of loss are not binding on the opposite party. Under Section 64UM (2) of the Insurance Act, it is only the licensed surveyors appointed by the Insurance Co. who are authorized to assess the damage. On the understanding that no further dispute will be raised by the complainant on assessment, the Insurance Co. appointed R.C. Patnaik, surveyor to assess the loss. This surveyor assessed the loss at the amount assessed by the previous surveyor- Sarat Chandra Senapati. Surveyor assessed loss at Rs. 6,00,000/- subject to policy excess clause. After deducting amounts of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards policy excess clause and Rs. 1,469/- towards re-instatement of the sum insured for balance period from the amount of loss assessed, the net amount of insurance claim payable was Rs. 4,98,531/- which was immediately offered to the complainant. This amount was received towards full and final settlement of the insurance claim. It was denied that Insurance Co. is liable to indemnify for the claim amount of Rs. 66.86 lakhs and to compensate an equal amount for the delay caused in settling the claim as alleged.
We have heard Shri S.M. Suri for the complainant and Shri P.K. Seth for the opposite party-Insurance Co. and have been taken through the records.
Controversy in this complaint centers around the point whether complainant is entitled to the amount over and above Rs. 4,98,531/- and if so, how much? Before submitting the claim the complainant had appointed J.M. Khadanga, chartered engineer and S.K. Mohanty, surveyor to assess the loss to the insured property. In the report-dated 27.10.1999, J.M. Khadanga assessed the loss at Rs. 40,47,446/-. S.K. Mohanty assessed the loss at Rs. 36,54,600/- in the report dated 15.11.1999. On receipt of intimation in regard to damage to the insured property in cyclone the opposite party-Insurance Co. deputed S.K. Panda to conduct preliminary survey. Preliminary survey report submitted by Shri Panda is dated 24.11.1999. Sarat Chandra Senapati was appointed as final surveyor to assess the loss caused to the insured property. His report dated 27.12.1999 is at page Nos. 93 to 113 together with its enclosures on the paper book. This survey report also contains the details of estimate of loss submitted by the complainant as under:-
1. Compound wall Rs.
3,77,790.00
2. a) Damage to A.C. sheets to all sheets Rs. 4,58,760.00
b) Labour charges for removing broken sheds Rs. 50,000.00
3. Straightening and painting of chimney Rs. 1,00,000.00
4. Damage to refractory work in furnace Rs.10,38,296.00
5. General repair works to all civil structures Rs. 6,59,100.00
6. Miscellaneous repair to machines Rs.13,63,500.00 ______________ Grand total Rs.40,47,446.00 _________ ____ To be only noted that this estimate has been extracted verbatim from the report of said J.M. Khadanga dated 27.10.1999. Sarat Chandra Senapati, surveyor in his report has dealt with each of the above six items of damage and those being material are reproduced below:-
Details of damages:
Compound wall:
(i) Reconstruction of damage wall with Ist class K.B. bricks having crushing strength between 100 kg/cm2 to 149 kg/cm2in cement mortar (1:6) including scaffolding, curing with all labours.
Size and Quantity of the damaged wall:
(a) East side - Length - 98 0 Height
- 8-0(over plinth level) Thickness - 0-9 Intermediate pillars size 1 3 x 1 3 No. of pillars 7 nos.
Pillar spacing 16 0 (centre to centre) Quantity:
Wall - 98-0 x 8 8 x 0-9 = 636.51 cu. Ft.
Pillars (1-3 0-9) x 1-3 x 8 8 x n nos.
= 37.88 cu. ft.
____________ 674.39 cu. ft.
(b) South side - Length - 260 0 Height
- 12-0(over plinth area) Thickness - 0-9 pillar size 1 3 x 1 3 No. of pillars 16 nos.
Pillar spacing 16 8 Quantity:
Wall - 260-0 x 12 0 x 0-9 = 2340.00 cu. ft.
Pillars (1-3 0-9) x 1-3 x1 3 x 12-0 x 16 nos. = 120.00 cu. ft.
____________ = 2460.00 cu.
ft.
(b) West side - Length - 181 0 Height
- 12-0 Thickness - 0-9 Pillar size 1 3 x 1 3 No. of pillars 12 nos.
Quantity:
Wall - 181-0 x 12 0 x 0-9 = 1629.00 cu. ft.
Pillars (1-3 0-9) x 1-3 x 12-0 x 12 nos. = 90.00 cu. ft.
____________ = 1719.00 cu. ft.
Hence the total quantity of brick works Comes to = a+b+c = 674.39 + 2460.00 = 1719.00 = 4853.39 cu. ft.
or say = 137.45 cu. m @ Rs. 1,100/- per cu. m = Rs. 1,51,195.00 Less 20% towards salvage/refusable bricks (-) Rs. 30,239.00 ______________ Rs.
1,20,956.00
ii) 12mm thick cement plastering (1:6) for brick work including curing with all labour Quantity :
a) East wall - 2x98-0 x 8-8 =1697.46 sq. ft.
Pillars - 2x(1-3 0-9) x 8-8 x 7 nos. = 60.62 sq. ft.
b) South wall - 2x260-0 x 12-0 = 6240.00 sq. ft.
Pillars - 2x(1-3 0-9) x 12-0 x 16 nos. = 192.00 sq. ft.
c) West wall - 2x181-0 x 12-0 = 4344.00 sq. ft.
Pillars - 2x(1-3 0-9) x 12-0 x 12 nos. = 144.00 sq. ft.
______________ 12677.98 sq. fts.
Or 1178.25 sq. m. @ Rs. 40/- per sq.m = Rs.47,130.00
(iii) White washing two coats over both side newly construction wall Quantity same as item No. (ii) i.e. 1178.25 sq. m. @ Rs. 6/- per sq. m. = Rs. 7,069.50
iv) Removing the debries and clearing of site of broken wall and restacking of reusable bricks reusable bricks at 50m. lead Quantity same as item No. (i) i.e. 137.45 cu. m. @ Rs. 150/- = Rs. 20,617.50 ______________ Rs. 1,95,773.00 A.C. SHEET ROOFING Damaged A.C. sheet roofing of 2m. & 3m length required replacement on various shed. The details of roofing found damaged in different shed are is follows:
Description of shed Total No.of sheet damaged 2m. 3m.
Area of sheets in sq. ft.
2m. 3m.
a. Mill room
i) Roof - 160
- -
ii) West cladding - 46 - -
iii) East cladding 8 29 - -
iv) South cladding 5 - - -
v) North cladding 3 7 - -
____ ___ 16 242 344.32 7811.76 b. Furance room
i) Roof 20 11 - -
ii) West cladding 31 - - -
iii) East cladding 15 2 - -
iv) South cladding 9 6 - -
v) North cladding 1 3 - -
____ ___ 76 22 1635.32 710.16
c) Workshop Room size 38-6 x 22-6 (with projection) Area = 866.25 sq. ft.
A.C. sheet found intact = 10 nos. of 2m length i.e. of area 20 sq. m or 215.20 sq. ft.
Hence the ACC sheet damaged = 866.25 215.20 - - 651.05 -
d) Electrical main panel room No. 1 - 12 - 387.36
e) Panel room for pump 4 5 86.08 161.40
f) Motor room ( All sheets damaged) Room size 19 5 X 20-6 (with projection) Area = 397.90 sq. ft. - - 397.90 -
g) Pump room ( All sheets damaged) Room size 15 6 X 12-0 (with projection) Area = 186.00 sq. ft. - - 186.00 -
h) Labour quarters
(i) Room No. 1 5 -
(ii) Room No. 2 2 -
(iii) Room No. 3 4 -
(iv) Room No. 4 4 -
(v) Room No. 5 4 -
(vi) Room No. 6 4 -
(vii) Room No. 7 3 -
____ _______ 26 - 559.52 -
_______________________ 3860.39 9070.68 So the total A.C. sheets of 2m & 3m Length damaged is as follows:
2m A.C. sheet s = 3860.39 3m A.C. sheets = 9070.68 __________ 12,931.07 So for refixing or replacing the damaged A.C. sheet in its places including all accessories with all labour 12,931.07 sq.ft. @ Rs. 14/- Rs. 1,93,966.05
2. Cost of 110 nos. of Ridgers 2 Rs. 125/- cu.m = Rs. 13,750.00
3. labour charges towards removing the damaged A.C. sheets (L.S.) Rs. 20,000.00
4. Labour charges towards refitting of Ridgers 110 nos. @ Rs. 15/- Rs. 1,650.00 __________________ Rs. 2,29,366.05 Straightening and painting of chimney:
During course of our survey, the undersigned had physically inspected the said chimney and observed that there was no damage sustained by the chimney. The same is also clearly visible in the photographs taken by the undersigned and enclosed to our report. This is the reason why the undersigned has not considered the same in the assessment.
Damage to refractory work in furnace:
During course of our survey the undersigned had physically inspected the said Furnace thoroughly and took the photographs from each possible angles including the inner view of the furnace showing the fire bricks fixed in side walls, roof panel (dome) from the charging door side through which the insured claiming that rain water has entered inside the furnace. The photographs are enclosed to our report for your reference and records.
During physical inspection, the undersigned had thoroughly measured the Furnace and the details are as follows:-
Length of the Furnace - 70 0 from pusher Width outer to outer - 3m.
Width inner to inner - 2m.
With of side wall - 0.5 m.
Height (including steel casing) - 5-0 Furnace side window situated at - 2-0 high from concrete base and 2-4 high from G.L. Furnace peripheri G.L. Situated at - 3-5 high from draft which is connected to Ricco operator and chimney Size of the charging plat from situated at charging door Length - 14 5 Width - 11 7 Height -
2 7 (from side G.L.) 3-9 (from draft) There are three nos. of openings in each side of the furnace lengthwise and one charging door was at front side through which the raw materials filled inside the Furnace and its size is same as the width of the furnace i.e. 2m. and it can be closed with steel shutter while the furnace is not in operation. Another discharge window was at extreme left end at other side.
The furnace is built with one steel casing.
After thorough physical inspection it was observed that the raw materials were filled inside the furnace at the charging door end. The fire bricks fixed in side walls and roof layer were found to be unaffected. The joint mortars also found to be unaffected. On verification at discharging door and other side openings, it was found that the slags were quite dry. The same are clearly visible in the photographs enclosed to our report. After thorough physical inspection, no water mark found inside the furnace. Further since the furnace was made up off fire bricks of various sizes, hence there is no possibility of damage to refractory of furnace if in case will come in contact of water in being not in operation for quite a long time. Further considering the position and situation of Furnace, it was presumed that no water could enter inside the furnace due to heavy rain. This is the reason why the undersigned has not considered towards the repairing of furnace in the assessment.
5. GENERAL REPAIR WORK
(a) Motor room (300 H.P. motor) The mortar room was completely demolished. Its two side i.e. North & South were constructed with brick wall and the other two sides were open. Hence two nos. of brick walls were demolished which should be reconstructed.
(i) Reconstruction of damage wall with 1st class K.B. bricks having crossing strength between 100 kg/cm2 to 149 cm2 in cement mortar (1:6) including scaffolding, curing with all labour .
Quantity
- 2x19-5 (L) x 15+11 (H) x 0-9 (T) 2 = 379.49 cu. ft.
or 10.71 cu.m @ Rs. 1,100/- per cu. m + Rs. 11,781.00 Less 20% towards salvage/reusable brick (-) Rs. 2,356.20 _____________ Rs.
9,424.80
ii) 12 mm thick cement plastering (1:6) for brick work including curing all labour Quantity 2x2x19-5 (L) x 15+11 (H) 2 = 1009.32 sq. ft.
or 93.80 sq. m. @ Rs. 40/- per sq. m. Rs. 3,752.00
iii) White washing two coats over both side newly constructed wall Quantity same as item No. (ii) i.e. 93.80 sq. m @ Rs. 6/- per sq. m. Rs. 562.80
iv) Removing of debries and cleaning of site of broken wall and restacking of reusable bricks of 50m lead.
Quantity same as item No. (i) i.e. 10.71 cu. m @ Rs. 150/- Rs. 1,606.50 ___________ Rs.
15,346.10 b. Labour quarters:
The labour quarter which was situated just behind the compound wall got affected/damaged, out of seven Nos. of rooms, two rooms North (front) side wall broken and another four rooms North wall and two rooms middle partition wall cracked.
Hence the same required dismantling, cleaning of debries and remaking in all respect.
(i) Reconstruction of damaged wall with 1st class K.B. bricks having crushing strength between 100 kg/cm2 to 149 kg/cm2 in cement mortar (1:6) including scaffolding, curing with all labour.
Quantity :
Front (North) wall 6 nos. x 14 0 (L) x 9-3 (H) x 0-9 (T) = 582.75 cu. ft.
Partition wall 2 nos. x 12-0 (L) x 0-10 (T) X 6 0 + 4-3 (affected height) 2 = 102.09 cu. ft.
684.84 cu. ft.
Deduct towards opening for doors & windows (-)
(i) Doors = 6x6-6 x 3-0 x 0-10 = 97.11 cu. ft.
(ii) Window = 6x3-3-6 x 2-6 x 0-10 = 43.57 cu. ft.
___________ =140.68 cu. ft.
Net quantity comes to = 684.84 140.68 = 544.16 cu. ft.
Or 15.41 cu. m @ Rs. 1100/- per cu. m Rs.
16,951.00 Less 20% towards reusable/salvage bricks (-) Rs. 3,390.20 ____________ Rs.
13,560.00
(ii) 12 mm thick cement plastering (1:6) for brick work including curing all labour Quantity:
Front wall = 2x6 nos. x14-0 (L)x9 3 (H) = 1554 sq. fts.
Partition Wall = 2x2nos. x12-0 (L) x 5.12 (H) = 246 sq. ft.
______________ 1800 sq. ft.
Deduct for doors and windows :-
(i) Doors 6 x 6-6 x 3-0 = 117 sq. ft.
(ii) Windows 6x3-6 x 2-6 = 52.50 sq. ft.
____________ 169.50 sq. fts.
Net quantity comes to = 1800-169.50 = 1630.50 sq. ft.
Or 151.53 sq. m. @ Rs. 40/- Rs. 6,061.20
iii) White washing two coats over both side newly constructed wall Quantity same as item No. (ii) i.e. 151.53 sq. m. @ Rs. 6/- Rs. 909.18
iv) Dismantling of broken/cracked wall and removing of debries and cleaning of site of broken wall and restacking of reusable bricks of 50m lead Quantity same as item No. (i) i.e. 15.41 cu. m @ Rs. 150/- Rs. 2,311.50
v) Repairing of one door and refixing of door & windows L.S. Rs. 2,000.00 ___________ Rs.
24,842.68 c. Workshop:
(i) Work shop room East side wall found cracked/ broken at top level for 3 depth and 26-6 length which required dismantling, cleaning of debries and remaking in all respect 26-6 (L) x 3-0 (H) x 0-10 (T) = 65.98 cu.
ft.
or 1.86 cu.m @ Rs. 1,100/- per cu. m Rs. 2,046.00 Less 20% towards salvage/reusable bricks(-) Rs. 409.20 _____________ Rs. 1,636.80
ii) 12 mm thick cement plastering (1:6) for brick work including curing all labour Quantity:
26-6 (L) x 3-0 (H) x2 = 159 sq. m.
or 14.77 sq. m. @ Rs. 40/- per sq. m Rs. 590. 80
iii) Colouring washing two coats over both side on newly constructed wall.
Quantity same as item No. (ii) i.e. 14.77 sq. m. @ Rs. 8/- Rs. 118.16
iv) Dismantling of broken/cracked wall and removing of debries and cleaning of site of broken wall and restacking of reusable bricks of 50m lead Quantity same as item No. (i) i.e. 1.86 cu. m @ Rs. 150/- per cu.m. Rs. 279.00 _______________ Rs. 2,624.76 d. Repair to weigh bridge machineries and electronics equipments:
Due to water submerged the load cells might have affected which required repairing though the insured did not produces any supporting documents towards the same, however we can consider the same on lump sum basis L.S. Rs. 20,000.00 e. Repairing to the Structures Repairing to the structures of the main shed, furnace Shed etc. with materials and labour Quantity 1,000 kgs. @ Rs. 22/- Rs. 22,000.00 f. Plastic sheet of cabin:
Mill shed cabin room plastic sheet found broken The details of which are follows:
4-0 x 4-10 = 19.32 sq. ft.
4-0 x 4-16 = 18.00 sq. ft.
4-0 x 2-9 = 11.00 sq. ft.
4-0 x 3-4 = 13.32 sq. ft.
____________ 61.64 sq. fts.
i.e. 61.64 sq. fts. @ Rs. 50/- per sq. fts. Rs. 3,082.00 g. Painting to structural work Painting is required to the affected/damaged Structure (L.S.) Rs. 10,000.00 h. Office Office glass pane found broken which required Replacement (L.S.) Rs. 5,000.00
i) Main Gate Main gate one side panel found bent, buckled and Damaged which required repairing size of the main gate = 2x8-0 (L) x 7-10 (H) So one door/panel required repairing (L.S.) So total costing towards general repairing Works comes to = A+B+C+D+E+F+G+H+I = Rs. 15,346.10+ Rs. 24,842.68 + Rs. 2,624.76 + Rs. 20,000.00 + Rs. 22,000 + Rs. 3,082.00 + Rs. 10,000.00 + Rs. 5,000.00 + Rs. 3,000.00 = Rs. 1,05,895.54 Miscellaneous Repairs
1. Twisting machines Over hauling to twisting machine Rs.
5,000.00
2. Electricals:
Repairer and replacement of electricals Rs. 15,000.00
3. Panel room Repair to switch gear and fuse gears in panel room Rs.20,000.00
4. Electrical Motors:
Opening, drying, varnishing, balancing and fitting of all motors Rs. 25,000.00
5. 4 KW oil heater:
Replacement of 4 KW oil heater 4 nos. Rs. 4,000.00
6. Gear oil and grease Replacement of gear oil and grease, 2 drums Rs. 20,000.00
7. Oxygen regulator:
Cost of oxygen regulator, 3 nos. Rs. 3,900.00 ___________ Rs.
92,900.00 Total assessment comes to = A+B+C+D = Rs.
1,95,773.00 + 2,29,360.05 + Rs.
1,05,895.54 + Rs. 92,900.00 = Rs.6,23,928.29 Less depreciation @ Rs. 3% (-) (For 1 year) =Rs.
18,717.84 _______________ Rs. 6,05,210.44 Less salvage cost (-) Rs. 5,210.44 ________________ Rs. 6,00,000.00.
At the cost of repetition, it may be mentioned that in para No. 13 of the written version the Insurance Co. has alleged that on the understanding that no further dispute will be raised by the complainant on assessment the opposite party appointed R.C. Patnaik, surveyor to assess the loss. In corresponding para No. 13 of the rejoinder to the written version the complainant has not denied this fact specifically. In the report dated 7.4.2000, R.C. Patnaik assessed loss at Rs. 6,00,000/- as was assessed by Sarat Chandra Senapati, previous surveyor.
Shri Patnaik also recommended deduction of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the terms/conditions of policy from the assessment of Rs. 6,00,000/- as the loss was caused due to cyclone. Discussion made in the said report towards damage on straightening and painting of chimney and damage to refractor in furnace being material need be referred to. Same reads as under:-
Straightening and painting of chimney:
The preliminary survey did not mention any observation on the chimney. The final surveyor had mentioned in his report that there was no damage sustained by the chimney. During the course of survey we observed that there are three stay wires/anchors and none of them were snapped in the cyclone. The photographs of both the surveyors also reveal that there is no loss to the chimney. We also do not find any reasons for the damage of the chimney, and hence the claim on chimney is not tenable.
Damage to refractories work in the furnace:
From the photographs it is seen that only a small portion of the ACC roof in the furnace room area is damaged. The preliminary surveyor did not observe any major damage or water seeping from the top. He has mentioned that rain water has entered into the furnace through the pusher area (billet inlet). While on inspection, we have noticed that the pusher area is on a raised concrete platform, about 2 ft. from ground level. Rain water cannot get accumulated on the plat from and the water cannot enter through the pusher area. It may be only water splashing in the wind might have made some wetness on the face of the billet inlet. No water can also enter from the top due to the nature of construction the furnace. The furnace is also erected in one corner and during regular rainy season with a moderate wind velocity such water splashing also cannot be ruled out. It appears that the final surveyor has gone to the minute details during his inspection and report may be read. During our inspection we have found that the insured without undertaking any repair has restarted the production with the same furnace. Based on the observation of the final surveyor and based on our detail inspection of the furnace on 24.3.2000 we do not find any damage to the furnace and hence the claim is not tenable.
Loss of Rs. 40,47,446/- as estimated/assessed by said J.M. Khadanga includes amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards straightening and painting of chimney and Rs. 10,38,296/- towards damage to refractory work in furnace. Both Sarat Chandra Senapati and R.C. Patnaik, surveyors did not notice any damage either to chimney or furnace and have, therefore, dis-allowed the above two claims. In support of the survey report dated 27.10.1999, Sarat Chandra Senapati has filed affidavit and complainant has not chosen to cross-examine him in regard to alleged damage to the chimney and/or furnace. Reports of these two surveyors is a valuable piece of evidence by virtue of their having been appointed under Section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1983. Their reports have to be given credence over the reports of J.M. Khadanga, and S.K. Mohanty, who are interested persons. Otherwise also report of S.K. Mohanty, surveyor is cryptic and does not provide sufficient basis on assessment of compensation as made by him. Complainant is not entitled to any compensation in regard to the said two items. Surveyors of the opposite party-Insurance Co. have computed the loss to the compound wall at Rs. 1,95,773/-, damage to A.C. sheets including labour charges at Rs.2,29,366.05/-, general repair works at Rs. 1,05,895.54/- and repairs to machine at Rs. 92,900/-. As against this, claim made by the complainant primarily based on the report of J.M. Khadanga to the compound wall is Rs. 3,77,790/-, to A.C. sheets is Rs. 4,58,760/-, for labour charges for removing broken sheds is Rs. 50,000/-, towards general repair works is Rs. 6,59,100/- and for miscellaneous repair to machines is Rs. 13,63,500/-. Portion, extracted above, of the report of Sarat Chandra Senapati, surveyor would show that he has taken care of almost of every aspect while computing the loss/damage to the compound wall, A.C. sheets, towards general labour works and miscellaneous repairs to machines. We do not find any fault with the assessments as made by the two surveyors of the Insurance Company. Complainant has highly exaggerated the claim amount. Aforesaid amount of Rs. 4,98,531/- has since been paid to the complainant. For the foregoing discussion, complainant is not entitled to any amount beyond what has been paid to it. Complaint thus deserves to be dismissed being without any merit. Dismissed as such. No order as to cost.
...J. ( K.S. GUPTA ) PRESIDING MEMBER J. ( R.K. BATTA ) MEMBER vs