National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. National Machine Tools vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. on 5 February, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 764 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 20/08/2013 in Complaint No. 303/2000 of the State Commission Maharashtra) 1. M/S. NATIONAL MACHINE TOOLS SHOP NO. 1, SADGURU CO-OP. HSG. SOCIETY LTD., NEAR VAKOLA BRIDGE, SANTACRUZ (E) MUMBAI-400055 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISION IV N.T.C. HOUSE, N. MORARJEE MARG, DADABHAI CROSS ROAD 2, BALALRD ESTATE, MUMBAI-400038 MAHARASHTRA 2. M/S. GARG ASSOCIATES, SURVEYOR & LOSS ASSESSORS, 402, SUNFLOWER, NATASH PARK, MIRA ROAD (E), THANE-401107 MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER
For the Appellant : For the Respondent :
Dated : 05 Feb 2018 ORDER
APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS
For the Appellant
:
Mr. Anand Patwardhan, Advocate
For the respondent no. 1
:
Mr. Sanjay Krishnan, Advocate
Mr. Harshada Rane, Advocate
For the respondent no. 2
:
NEMO
PRONOUNCED ON : 05th FEBRUARY 2018
O R D E R
PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This first appeal has been filed under section 19, read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 20.08.2013, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in consumer complaint No. 303/2000, filed by the present appellant, vide which, the said complaint was ordered to be dismissed.
2. The facts of the case are that the complainant M/s. National Machine Tools which is an authorised distributor and service depot for power tools, machine tools etc. obtained an insurance policy from the opposite party (OP) Insurance Company for their business premises for indemnity against burglary/house-breaking etc. for the period 03.03.95 to 02.03.96. It is stated in the consumer complaint that on the intervening night of 02.09.2015 and 03.09.2015, burglary took place on the said premises and on the morning of 03.09.2015, most of the machines were found stolen. The complainant initially found that machinery worth ₹4,76,242/- had been stolen and he lodged a report with the local police to that effect. The Police prepared panchnama on the same day, i.e., 03.09.95. However, on the next day, i.e., 04.09.95, when the complainant verified the stocks minutely, he found that more material costing ₹1,97,328/- had also been stolen during the incident and intimation about the same was also given to the local police. The complainant informed the insurance company as well. The OP Insurance Company appointed Mr. K.L. Assar as surveyor who assessed the loss at ₹7 lakh. However, the OP Insurance Company appointed another surveyor M/s. Garg and Associates, who asked the complainant to supply various documents from time to time. The complainant alleged that the said surveyor asked for illegal gratification from them and on their failure to meet his demand, their claim was not settled. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking payment of a sum of ₹6,73,570/- from the OP Insurance Company alongwith interest @18% p.a. from the date of lodging complaint and also a sum of ₹2 lakh as compensation for mental harassment etc.
3. The complaint was resisted by the OP Insurance Company by filing a written version before the State Commission in which they stated that the complaint was barred by limitation under section 24A of the Act. Further, as per the audited balance sheet and Profit & Loss Account etc. duly signed by M/s. Gala Vora & Associates, Chartered Accountants, the complainant did not suffer any loss on account of stock in trade, cash etc. on 02.09.1995. The surveyor asked the complainant to substantiate his claim in the light of the facts given in the report of the chartered accountant, but on their failure to do so, the claim could not be sanctioned. The State Commission after considering the averments of the parties, dismissed the consumer complaint. Being aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present first appeal.
4. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case should be remanded to the State Commission for a fresh decision, as they wanted to lead evidence in support of their claim. The learned counsel stated that as per report of the first surveyor appointed by the OP Insurance Company, the complainant had suffered loss to the extent of ₹7 lakhs. However, the said report had not been brought on record of the State Commission.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/OP Insurance Company stated that as per the audited balance-sheet etc. the complainant had not suffered any loss. The figures given in the profit and loss account also indicated that the complainant had not suffered any loss. The order passed by the State Commission was, therefore, in accordance with law and should be upheld.
6. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
7. A careful perusal of the impugned order of the State Commission as well as the written version filed by the OP Insurance Company reveals that the previous surveyor K.L. Assar had failed to take into account the sales made by the complainant and hence, the assessment made by him could not be taken as valid. The other surveyor Garg & Associates had sent a letter dated 23.11.98 to the complainant, saying that they had received documents like the cash book, stock register, audited balance-sheet, profit & loss account etc. from the complainant, but they were providing final opportunity to the complainant to substantiate their claim, keeping in view the entries made in the said documents. It was further stated that in case the complainant failed to supply the necessary information/documents, the claim shall be treated as not tenable. The State Commission observed that instead of supplying the documents etc. to the surveyor, the complainant lodged a complaint against them, saying that they were demanding illegal gratification of ₹2 lakh. The State Commission also observed that if the complainant had suffered any loss due to burglary, at his business premises, the said loss should have been reflected in the statement of accounts and the audited balance-sheet. We have no reasons to differ with the observations made by the State Commission in the impugned order, which is a well-reasoned order and there is nothing on record to show any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the same. The State Commission also took into account the panchnama prepared by the Police on the date of incident, i.e., on 03.09.95.
8. Based on the discussion above, it is held that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is ordered to be dismissed, and the order passed by the State Commission is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.
...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER