State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Shreem Electric Limited vs The United Insurance Company Ltd on 4 January, 2019
CC/12/333 1/7
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Complaint Case No. CC/12/333
M/s.Shreem Electric Limited
(Formerly known as Shreem Capacitor Private
Limited),
Having Office at P.B.No.43 to 46,
Industrial Estate, Jaysingpur, Tal.Shirol,
District Kolhapur,
Through its Authorized person having power of
attorney of the company,
Shree V.B. Jagadale,
Vice-President (Finance & Purchase). ...........Complainant(s)
Versus
The United Insurance Company Ltd.,
Having office at Sri Ram Mandir Bldg.,
1st floor, 9th Lane, Subhash Road,
Jaysingpur, Tal. Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur,
Through its Branch Manager.
.........Opponent(s)
BEFORE:
Mr.D.R. Shirasao, Presiding Judicial Member
Dr.S.K. Kakade, Member
For the Advocate Mr.Nagesh Chavan
Complainant(s):
For the None.
Opponent(s):
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Mr.D.R. Shirasao - Presiding Judicial Member:
(1) Complainant has filed this complaint against opponent for getting insurance claim along with interest on that amount along with costs and compensation.
CC/12/333 2/7(2) Complainant submitted that their firm previously known as M/s.Shreem Capacitors Private Limited. They were manufacturing HT and LT capacitors and supplying to various State Electricity Board, Government Undertakings and Railways. Complainant had obtained from Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd. (MSETCL) of 220 KVA Sub-station at Yavatmal. Accordingly, they started work of erection and installation activities in respect of 220 KVA Sub-station site at Yavatmal. Company had taken insurance policy from Opponent regarding property and articles present on the site of sub-station at Yavatmal. They had kept transformer and other fittings and accessories in open compound at sub-station, Yavatmal. The period of insurance was from 28/04/2008 to 27/04/2009. Company had deposited the amount of premium and the policy was in force. On 08/12/2008 at about 02.15 p.m. there was fire at sub-station and in that fire transformers and equipments present at the site of sub-station worth Rs.52,74,692/- were burnt. The complainant company had given report of that incident in Vadgaon Police Station at Yavatmal on 09/12/2008. Police had prepared panchanama of the spot and registered offence in that respect. Company had informed about the incident to opponent on 09/12/2008. Opponent had appointed surveyor for inspection of the site and preparing inspection report. Accordingly surveyor of opponent had visited the spot on 29/12/2008 and thereafter on 31/01/2010. Complainant company had made claim for getting compensation of Rs.52,74,692/- with the opponent on 18/12/2008. The surveyor of opponent had surveyed the spot and had given their survey report to opponent. However, opponent by issuing letter dated 08/12/2011 repudiated the claim of complainant. Hence, complainant has filed this case for getting CC/12/333 3/7 compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- as proposed by the surveyor of opponent along with costs and compensation.
(3) Opponent contested the complaint by filing their written version on record. They submitted that policy was issued in the name of M/s.Shreem Capacitors Pvt.Ltd. However the complainant is M/s.Shreem Electric Ltd. Complainant was not insured during the relevant period and hence, complaint filed by complainant is not tenable. They also submitted that complainant had not produced relevant documents for inspection before the surveyor. The same is appearing from the report of surveyor. Moreover, complainant had filed false and fabricated documents before the Surveyor for getting insurance claim. Hence, they submitted that they have rightly repudiated the claim of complainant. Hence, complaint filed by complainant be dismissed.
(4) Considering rival contentions of parties, evidence adduced by them on record and documents filed on record following points arise for our determination and we record our findings on them for the reasons given below:
Sr.No. Points Finding
(i) Whether complainant is : Yes.
'consumer' of opponent?
(ii) Whether opponent has given : Yes.
deficient service to complainant?
(iii) Whether complainant is entitled : Yes.
for getting insurance claim from As per order
opponent as claimed?
(iv) What order? : As per final
CC/12/333 4/7
order.
As to point no.(i):
(5) In this case it is admitted fact that the insurance policy was taken in the name of M/s.Shreem Capacitors Private Limited. The policy was taken for the period from 28/04/2008 to 27/04/2009. The incidence of fire had also taken place during subsistence of this insurance policy on 08/12/2008. The insurance claim in respect of property burnt in that incident was also made by M/s.Shreem Capacitors Private Limited. However from documents filed on record it appears that the name of this company is changed from 26/02/2010 as M/s.Shreem Electric Limited. In that respect complainant has filed certificate of registration on record. In view of the same complainant is entitled to file complaint in respect of fire that had taken place in the premises of M/s.Shreem Capacitors Private Limited.
(6) In this case it is admitted fact that the complainant had stored transformers and other fitting material in the premises of their sub- station at Yavatmal. For protection of that material complainant company had taken this insurance policy from opponent. Complainant had paid the premium of the insurance policy and insurance policy was in force. During subsistence of this insurance policy the incident of fire had taken place on 08/12/2008 and in that incident material placed at Sub-station at Yavatmal had burnt. In respect of that incident report was given in Vadgaon Police Station at Yavatmal and in that respect offence was registered in that police station. Police had also prepared panchanama on the spot. Complainant had made insurance claim in respect of that damage with opponent. However, opponent repudiated the same. Hence, CC/12/333 5/7 complainant has filed this complaint. Hence complainant is Consumer of opponent and complaint filed by complainant against opponent is tenable. Hence, we answer point no.(i) in affirmative.
As to point no.(ii) and (iii):
(7) In this case it is admitted fact that during the subsistence of insurance policy the incident of fire had taken place at the place of Sub-station at Yavatmal on 08/12/2008. In that incident transformers and other fitting materials had been burnt. In respect of that incident report was given in police station and police had also registered offence. Complainant company had informed this fact to opponent and opponent had appointed surveyor to survey the loss sustained by complainant. Opponent had engaged Bhupendra Bhandari of Pune as surveyor. Surveyor had visited the spot of incident. He had also procured documents from complainant and thereafter submitted his report to opponent assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.29,48,372/-. However opponent by issuing letter dated 08/12/2011 repudiated the claim of complainant. Hence, complainant is required to file this case.
(8) On perusal of repudiation letter it appears that opponent has repudiated the claim of complainant only on the ground that complainant had given false and fabricated documents to their surveyor and tried to make wrongful and illegal gain. In view of the same it is incumbent to go through the survey report which is produced on record. On perusal of survey report it appears that, initially, some irrelevant documents were supplied by complainant to surveyor and surveyor had brought this fat to the notice of the complainant company. Thereupon, complainant company had supplied all the relevant documents to surveyor. Surveyor had CC/12/333 6/7 verified the same and thereafter he assessed the loss of complainant to the tune of Rs.29,48,372/-. Surveyor has mentioned all these facts in his survey report. We are of the opinion that when complainant had provided all the relevant documents to surveyor and surveyor has also assessed the loss on the basis of those documents in that event it is not proper on the part of opponent to repudiate the claim of complainant alleging that they had provided false and fabricated documents to surveyor. Hence, it has become clear that the reason given by the opponent for repudiation of claim of complainant is not correct and legal. On the contrary there is evidence on record that in respect of claim of complainant, complainant had produced all the relevant documents before the surveyor. Surveyor had gone through the same and thereafter, had come to conclusion that complainant had sustained loss of Rs.29,48,372/-. Under these circumstances opponent was required to sanction the claim of complainant to that extent. Complainant had also shown his willingness to accept that much amount in respect of his claim. However, opponent had not given that amount to complainant and repudiated the claim of complainant. Hence, we are of the opinion that by repudiating the claim of complainant, opponent has given deficient service to complainant. As surveyor of opponent has assessed the loss of complainant to the tune of Rs.29,48,372/- complainant is entitled to get that much amount of insurance claim from opponent along with costs and compensation.
Complainant has shown his willingness to accept that much amount of claim from opponent. Hence, we answer point nos.(ii) and (iii) accordingly and proceed to pass the following order:
(9) In view of answer to point nos.(i) to (iii) we pass the following order:CC/12/333 7/7
ORDER
(i) Consumer complaint is partly allowed.
(ii) Opponent is hereby directed to pay insurance claim of Rs.29,48,372/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Forty Eight Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Two only) to complainant with interest @9% per annum from the date of claim i.e. 18/12/2008 till realization of amount by complainant.
(iii) Opponent is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lac only) and costs of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) to complainant in respect of this litigation within thirty days from the date of passing of this order otherwise these amounts will carry interest @9% per annum from the date of passing of this order till realization of amount by complainant.
(iv) Copies of this order be furnished to the parties `Pronounced on 04th January, 2019.
[D.R. Shirasao] Presiding Judicial Member [Dr.S.K. Kakade] Member ep