National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Karnavati Vinners Pvt. Ltd. vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. on 3 September, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO.111 OF 2012 (Against the order dated 16.01.2012 in Consumer Complaint Case No.39 /2007 of the State Commission, Gujarat) Karnavati Vinners Pvt. Ltd. Through its Director Keshubhai Patel The factory situated at Oran, Post Tajpur-Kui, National Highway No.8, Prantij, Dist. Sabarkantha .Appellant Versus 1. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Regional Office, Fifth Floor, Popular House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad- 380009 2. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office, Sector-16, Nr. Dena Bank, Gandhinagar 3. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office, Second Floor, Amarsinghji Complex, Nr. Tower, Himmatnagar. 4. A.M. Patel Surveyor Pvt. Ltd. 6/10, Janpath Centre, B/h. Sahajanand College, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad .........Respondents BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. S.J. Mehta, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON: 03.09.2012 ORDER
PER MR.VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER The Karnavati Vinners Pvt. Ltd. has challenged the decision of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in CC No.39 of 2007. The matter arose from the loss, in an incident of fire, which took place in the factory godown of the Complainant. The Complainants claim, under an existing insurance policy, was repudiated by the respondent/New India Assurance Company on 11.9.2007, against which the consumer complaint was filed before the State Commission.
2. The case of the Complainant before the State Commission was that the fire took place in the factory godown on 20.10.2006 at about 10:30 p.m. Allegedly, it occurred due to some unknown reason. The claim of the Complainant was repudiated by the insurance company through its letter of 11.9.2007, which states that:-
Surveyors have specifically mentioned in their reply dt. 9th August 2007 that they are not satisfied with the compliance from the insureds end. Non submission of required documents is a breach of policy condition no.6(b) of Standard Fire & Special Perils policy which reads as under;
The Insured shall also at all times at his own expense produce, procure and give to the company all such further particulars, plans, specification books, vouchers, invoices, duplicates or copies thereof, documents, investigation reports (internal/external), proofs and information with respect to the claim and the origin and cause of the loss and the circumstances under which the loss or damage occurred and any matter touching the liability or the amount of the liability of the company as may be reasonably required by or on behalf of the company together with a declaration on oath or in other legal form of the truth of the claim and of any matters connected therewith.
Looking to the above facts the competent authority has decided to repudiate your claim which please note.
3. We have carefully perused the records submitted before this Commission and heard Shri S.J. Mehta, Advocate, on behalf of the appellant. The State Commission has gone into two main issues concerning this complaint. One was whether the complainant had provided the documents necessary to assess the damage and the other, what was the cause of the fire.
4. It was contended that the Complainant had made a disproportionately large claim, without any basis and that the Complainant did not supply the necessary documents to the Surveyor appointed by the insurance company, despite several opportunities given over a period of eight-nine months. As per the written response of the OP/insurance company The opponent submits that the surveyor has tried to correlate and reconcile the stock statement provided by the complainant during the processing of the claim with the electric consumption bills of the previous years and the current year. Upon scrutinizing the said documents, it was found that though as per order dated 11.7.2006 of the Forest Department, the factory premises was sealed and manufacturing process was stopped, there is large scale variation in the insured stock.
On account of the said discrepancy, the surveyor called upon the complainant to provide all the relevant stock details including production and sale of details of the previous years in a tabular form so that it can scrutinize and scrupulously process the claim and can arrive at the correct assessment of the loss to the stock. It was further found that the stock of veneers which was shown on the date of loss was abnormally high in the closed factory compared to previous 4 years though the production was stopped since three months and sales was continuing due to pending bank loan which is not justifiable reason as the complainant has tried to reply upon the stock statement submitted to the bank officials but the bank officials have not verified the said stock physically at the insured premises. It, therefore, clearly transpires that the complainant wants to have unjust enrichment under the guise of alleged mishap of fire at the factory premises.
5. Before the State Commission, it was also contended on behalf of the OPs that :-
The claim has been specifically repudiated on the ground that the complainant failed to prove the origin of the fire and further failed to provide the documentary evidence for the processing of the claim till final date of the survey report.
This needs to be seen in the backdrop of the report of the assessor/surveyor, Shri D.T. Patil, appointed by the complainant himself. The State Commission has therefore observed:-
The complainant relied over the report of Shri D.T. Patel surveyor appointed by them. (Produced on the main file page no.212 to 215), the said report submitted by Shri Patel on date 16.10.2007 and he had made the spot verification on date 30.07.2007. Against which the incident was happened on date 20.10.2006 and the fact not transpired from his report that which documents have been provided by the complainant relying over which he had assessed the damage of Rs.86 lacs.
6. From the above, we get a clear idea of what records were asked for but not received by the surveyor appointed by the OP/insurance co. The appellant has made no worthwhile attempt to show how those records were made available. As for the assessment of loss of Rs 86 lacs by the surveyor appointed by the complainant himself, the appellant makes no attempt to answer the observation of the State Commission, mentioned above.
7. Coming to the cause of the fire, according to the Complaint, it occurred for unknown reasons. However, the complaint petition also suggested that the fire may have been caused by some burning fireworks falling in the factory premises as it had occurred close to the Diwali festival. At the same time, the complaint petition also states that in the course of the police investigation, the police authorities had sent various samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, which reported that no presence of hydrocarbons was noticed.
8. Before the State Commission, it was also pointed out that there was no business activity in the insured premises, as pursuant to the directions of the Honble Supreme Court, the factory had been closed down on 11.7.2006.
Consequent upon that, power was also disconnected from 18.8.2006. Therefore, there could have been no manufacturing activity, at the time of the incident of fire 20.10.2006.
9. Significantly, the incident of fire from which the insurance claim arose, had occurred just 13 days after commencement of the insurance policy. The policy came into effect on 7.10.2006 and the fire occurred on 20.10.2006. This fire could not have been caused by any electrical malfunctioning, as the power supply to the factory had been disconnected two months earlier in the month of August.
10. The State Commission has noted that the factory was at the edge of the village and, as per the written response of the OPs, there was no residential area around. This was not challenged by the Complainant. Therefore, the half-baked theory of Diwali fire works being the cause of the factory fire, has been rejected by the State Commission, concluding that the Complainant has failed to prove the origin of the fire and has also failed to lead evidence against the contention of the OPs that there were no residential houses surrounding the factory area.
11. We are in agreement with the above finding and reject the contention of the appellant that the State Commission has not correctly appreciated the FSL report. We also reject the contention that the respondent/OPs have not examined any independent expert on this issue. This contention of the appellant betrays non-acceptance of the basic rule of evidence that the evidence was to be led by the Complainant in support of the theory advance by it that the fire may have been caused by burning fireworks falling in the factory premises. Significantly, learned counsel for the appellant also conceded during the course of the arguments that no evidence was led before the State Commission in support of the claim that the fire was caused by fire crackers.
12. In the background of the detailed examination above, we come to the conclusion that the findings of the State Commission are based on a correct appreciation of the evidence before it. We find no justifiable ground either in the appeal memorandum or in the submission of the counsel for the appellant to justify interference with the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.
.Sd/-
(V.B.GUPTA,J.) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-.
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER s./-