State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
New India Assurance Company Ltd., vs Gauri Rice & General Mills, on 8 November, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1307 of 2008
Date of institution : 17.11.2008
Date of Decision : 8.11.2012
New India Assurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, College Road, Sangrur through Sh.
M. Dutt, Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., SCO No. 36-37, Regional Office,
Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.
....Appellant.
Versus
1. Gauri Rice & General Mills, Cheema through its Prop. Sh. Dharampal son of Sh.
Balak Ram, Resident of Chema.
2. Dharampal son of Sh. Balak Ram, resident of Cheema, Proprietor of Gauri Rice
& General Mills, Cheema.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated 1.10.2008 of the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Before:-
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member.
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Nitin Gupta, Advocate for
Sh. Vinod Mahendru, Advocate
For the respondents : Sh. Suresh Singla, Advocate
PIARE LAL GARG, PRESIDING MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the appellant/opposite parties(hereinafter called 'the appellant') against the order dated 1.10.2008 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur(hereinafter called the 'District Forum') by which the complaint of the respondents/complainants(hereinafter called 'the respondents') was accepted by the District Forum.
2. The facts of the present case are that the respondents had got insured one electric motor of 70 BHP with the appellants for a sum of Rs. 1 lac under the machinery insurance on 3.1.2007 vide policy No. 361302/44/06/51/35041 for the period of 2.1.2007 to 1.2.2008 after the payment of premium of Rs. 1,684/-. It was pleaded that in the month of November, 2007 the said electric motor stopped First Appeal No. 1307 of 2008 2 working and intimation to this fact was given to the appellant. Surveyor was appointed by the appellant, who inspected the electric motor through and electrician and after the inspection directed the respondents to get the motor repaired and the expenses incurred by the respondents would be paid. On the asking of the Surveyor, the motor was got repaired from M/s Gahir Electric Works, Cheema and it was found that the coper wire and insulation was required to bring the motor in working condition, which was purchased by the respondents from M/s New India Trading Company, Sunam vide bill No. 1079 dated 21.12.2007 for an amount of Rs. 60,278/- and got the same changed from M/s Gahir Electric Works, Cheema. The mechanic also charged Rs. 7,000/- as repair charges. It was pleaded that the documents and bills for the payment of claim were submitted to the appellants, which were received but only a cheque of Rs. 14,144/- dated 22.2.2008 was received with regard to the claim from the appellants, which was not accepted and the same was returned to the appellants vide letter dated 29.2.2008. Legal notice was also served upon the appellants on 22.4.2008 but of no avail. The complaint was filed with the prayer that the appellants may be directed to pay Rs. 67,278/- with interest @ 18% per annum from 29.11.2007 till payment, Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental pain and harassment and Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, the appellant replied by taking the preliminary objections that the respondents has not come to the District Forum with clean hands, the District Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint as the motor was used for commercial purpose. On merits, it was admitted that electric motor of 70 BHP was got insured by the respondents. It was also admitted that the respondents informed on 30.11.2007 that the said motor was out of order, then the appellant deputed Engineer Aajesh Kumar to inspect and assess the loss. The Surveyor submitted his report and as per terms and conditions of the policy after deducting the average clause, loss to the tune of Rs. 14,144/- was sent to the respondents First Appeal No. 1307 of 2008 3 vide cheque No. 404267 dated 18.1.2008. The said amount was not accepted by the respondents and the cheque is lying in the office of the appellant and the respondents were pressurizing the appellant for the payment of Rs. 67,278/-, which was not payable. It was denied that the terms and conditions of the policy were not supplied to the respondents. It was found at the time of inspection/survey that the value of the motor was Rs. 1,30,000/- whereas the respondents had insured the same for Rs. 1,00,000/-. All other allegations were denied and dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 67,278/- with interest @ 9% per annum from 22.2.2008 till realization and Rs. 3,000/- as litigation expenses.
5. Hence, the appeal.
6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, grounds of appeal, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The appeal was filed by the appellant on the grounds that the District Forum fell in error while granting the claim, the interest awarded by the District Forum @ 9% per annum is on higher side and the order of the District Forum is against the terms and conditions of the policy, which is liable to be set-aside.
8. There is no dispute between the parties that the respondents had insured the electric motor with the appellant for the period of 2.1.2007 to 1.1.2008 for an amount of Rs. 1 lac. There is also no dispute that during the existence of the policy, the motor went out of order and intimation to this effect was given by the respondents to the appellant and on the receipt of intimation Sh. Aajesh Kumar was appointed as Surveyor to assess the loss suffered by the respondents. First Appeal No. 1307 of 2008 4
9. The Surveyor inspected the premises of the respondents and submitted his report (Ex. R-3) dated 7.1.2008 to the appellant vide which total loss of the respondents was assessed as Rs. 15,500/-.
10. We have perused the assessment and loss clause as per report of the Surveyor. Relevant part of which is reproduced:-
"ASSESSMENT OF LOSS:-
(A) STATOR
Sr. No. Detail of Replacement Estimate Assessed
1. Copper wire 58 Kg @ 445/- 25810.00 24273.00
(allowed 55.8 Kg. @ 435/- per Kg)
No. of slots 72
No. of Coil Set 18
St. of one coil set 3.100 Kg.
2. Insulation Material 2800.00 2000.00
Such as F-Glass, Sleeves etc.
3. Labour charges for rewinding 3500.00 2800.00
Total 29073.00
Less scrap value of copper wire @ 310/- per 17298.00
Kg x 55.8 Kg.
Thus Total 11775.00 (A)
(B) ROTAR
Sr. No. Detail of Replacement Estimate Assessed
1. Copper wire 43 Kg @ 445/- 19135.00 18009.00
(Allowed 41.4 Kg @ 435/- per Kg)
No. of Slots 54
No. of Coil Set 18
St. of one coil set 2.300 Kg.
2. Insulation Material 2800.00 2800.00
Such as E-Glass, Sleeves etc.
3. Labour charges for rewinding 3500.00 2800.00
Thus Total 9675.00 (B)
Thus Total Loss Payable = A+B =
11775.00+9675.00 = 21450.00
11. In serial No. 1 and 2 regarding the loss of Stator and Rotar, weight of Coper Wire was assessed 58 Kg. plus 43 Kg. total 101 Kgs. and the rate is mentioned as Rs. 445/- per Kg. but allowed only 55.8 Kg. plus 41.4 Kg. i.e. 97.200 Kg. @ Rs. 435/- per Kg. But no reason is mentioned why the weight and rate of the coper wire was reduced by the Surveyor when he had found that the loss of the coper wire was 101 Kgs. and the rate of the same was Rs. 445/- per Kg. in the month. As per his own assessment, the respondents had suffered the loss of Rs. 44,945/- but allowed only Rs. 24,273/- and Rs. 18,009/- = Rs. 42,282/- i.e. 44,945/- (-) 42,282/- = less Rs. 2663/- without any reason and evidence. The First Appeal No. 1307 of 2008 5 insulation material was assessed in both the loss of Stator and Rotar to the extent of Rs. 5600/- but allowed only Rs. 3700/- i.e. less Rs. 1900/- without any reason and evidence.
12. The scrap value of the coper wire of both the Stator and Rotar was assessed @ Rs. 310/- per Kg. i.e. total Rs. 17,298/- plus Rs. 12,834/- = Rs. 30,132/- when there is no evidence from whom he enquired the scrap value of the coper wire. That could not be more than half of the rate of new coper wire available in the market. As such, we are of the view that the value of the scrap coper wire will not be more than Rs. 22,472/-. If we accept the report of the Surveyor, the respondents had suffered the loss as under:-
Rs. 22,472/- (loss of coper wire) + cost of insulation material Rs. 1900/- + Rs. 7,000/- as labour charges allowed by the Surveyor i.e. total loss of Rs. 31,372/-
13. It is mentioned in the report by the Surveyor that the value of the motor was Rs. 1,30,000/- but the same was insured for Rs. 1,00,000/-. But there is no iota of evidence from whom the rate/value of the motor was inquired by the Surveyor and even no estimated bill was produced by the appellant to prove this fact, as such, the average clause was also not applicable for the payment of the loss to the respondents.
14. The respondents had produced the bills of the Coper wire and insulation material as Rs. 60,278/- but they had not deducted the price of scrap value of the coper value or even not mentioned in the complaint whether the respondents offered the appellant to accept the salvage for which they were bound to hand over the same to the appellant.
15. In view of the above discussion, we are of the confirmed view that the respondents are entitled for the claim of Rs. 31,372/- only from the date of submission of the report by the Surveyor to the appellant but the appellant had wrongly offered Rs. 14,441/- to the respondents, as such, report of the Surveyor is not acceptable.First Appeal No. 1307 of 2008 6
16. The appellant is directed to pay Rs. 31,372/- to the respondents with interest @ 9% per annum after one month from the submission of the report by the Surveyor till its payment. Rest of the order of the District Forum is affirmed.
17. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is partly accepted and the order of the District Forum is modified as stated above.
18. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 2.11.2012 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
19. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No. 1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
20. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant to respondent No. 1 within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
21. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Piare Lal Garg) Presiding Member November 8, 2012. (Jasbir Singh Gill) as Member