State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Khimtex Limited vs The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 30 July, 2013
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
Complaint Case No. CC/07/05
1. Khimtex Limited
16, Dadi Seth Agiary Lane,
Bandrawala
Building, 1st
floor, Room No. 16, Kalbadevi, Mumbai - 400 002.
Mumbai
Maharashtra
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The United India
Insurance Co. Ltd.
Reg. and Head Office,
United India
House, 24, White House
Road, Chennai - 600 014.
2. The Divisional
Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
201, Jainson Plaza,
2nd floor, Opp. Malad Shopping Centre, S. V. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai -
400 064.
Mumbai
Maharashtra
............Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. S.R.
Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
PRESENT:
Mr.S.B. Prabhawalkar,
Advocate for the complainant.
Ms.Sheetal Patil,
Advocate Proxy for Mr.A.S. Vidyarthi, Advocate for the opponents.
ORDER
Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member The consumer complaint pertains to recovery of balance claim amount under the insurance policy for damages and other reliefs. The prayers are as under :-
(a) to pay to the complainant the balance amount of `45,02,484/- out of the assured sum under the aforesaid policy as per proposal of complainant plus interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 13/01/2005 till final payment.
b) to pay to the complainant `44,00,000/- damages for loss of production and loss of business and `6,00,000/- for compensation for undue delay in settling the claim, harassment and mental agony.
c) Cost of this proceeding be paid by the Opposite parties to the Complainant.
d) Further and other reliefs as the Complainant may be entitled to be granted.
2. Undisputed facts are that the factory premises of the complainant situated at 102, Danudyog Industrial Estate, Dadara & Nagar Haveli, (U.T.) Silvassa was insured for `70 Lakhs under Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy issued by opponent-United India Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurance Company in short). Due to flood, the factory sustained loss on 03/08/2004. Immediately, intimation was given to the Insurance Company, who had appointed Surveyor-M/s.Ashock Chopra & Company. The Insurance Company offered to settle the claim at `24,97,516/-. Since the complainant accepted said settlement by signing settlement intimation voucher, claim was accordingly paid and received by the complainant on 13/01/2005. Thereafter, alleging that said settlement was under protest, the complainant raised a grievance by its letter dated 21/02/2005 and thereafter filed this consumer complaint.
3. The Insurance Company denied the claim as per their written version dated 04/07/2007. It is submitted that assessment of loss made by the Surveyor was accepted and accordingly, settlement was offered and which was accepted by the complainant by signing discharge voucher for `24,97,516/- in full and final settlement of their claim.
Therefore, no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company could be alleged and consumer complaint is misconceived. It is also submitted that the insurance claim is settled taking into consideration the nature of the insurance policy and actual loss assessed by the Surveyor. With this they asked to dismiss the consumer complaint.
4. Parties relied upon the document of insurance policy, Survey Report, Discharge Voucher as well as the correspondence between the parties, particularly, letter dated 10/08/2004 written by complainant to the Insurance Company and reply to it given by the Insurance Company dated 01/11/2004.
5. Heard Mr.S.B. Prabhawalkar, Advocate for the complainant and Ms.Sheetal Patil, Advocate Proxy for Mr.A.S. Vidyarthi, Advocate for the opponents.
6. There is dispute about non-incorporation of Reinstatement Value Clause in the insurance policy.
Policy document did not include it.
According to the complainant, they have tick mark that option in the Proposal Form. However, Insurance Company by its letter dated 01/02/2004 clarified as under :-
In this regard, we would like to inform you that even though you had opted for the Reinstatement Value Clause in the proposal form, we have not considered the same. Hence, the policy was issued on Market Value Basis and not on Reinstatement Value Clause. The same was already conveyed to your Agent, Shri D.P. Singhania by the undersigned at the time of acceptance of the proposal.
7. Thus, it is clear that the Insurance Company while issuing the policy, in its own wisdom, did not include Reinstatement Value Clause and the policy was issued on the Market Value Basis. After issuance of the policy on 06/01/2004 since there is no change in the terms of the policy, one has to stand by it and accept the clarification to this effect of the Insurance Company. Surveyor assessed the loss taking into consideration the policy document and its actual verification of the loss. There is no counter evidence to show that said assessment is improper or arbitrary. Therefore, we find it proper to accept the assessment of the loss as calculated by the Surveyor at `25,07,373/- as per its report dated 02/11/2004. The Insurance Company accepting said report offered the settlement at `24,97,516/-. By signing the settlement intimation voucher, the complainant did accept said settlement. We find that till complainant wrote a letter after about more than a month, having accepted the amount, complainant had not raised any grievance as such that said settlement offered at `24,97,516/- was not acceptable to it. In fact the Insurance Company would not have paid the claim had the complainant did not unconditionally accepted the settlement offer. Therefore, case of the Insurance Company that said settlement amount was accepted by the complainant towards full and final settlement without any protest, is to be accepted.
8. Thus, we find that by settling the claim, there is no arbitrariness on the part of the Insurance Company and, therefore, no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company could be assumed or alleged.
9. Furthermore, the consumer complaint as per the statement of the complainant is not for claiming compensation on account of any deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company, but they are claiming relief of recovery of balance amount of `45,02,484/- against the total insured amount. It is a money claim, if we look it from that angle. Besides that complainant did not establish any claim to the extent of `70 Lakhs of the loss.
Similarly, no claim could be awarded against the loss of production (in manufacturing process) or loss of business as a consumer dispute.
10. For the reasons stated above, we find that the complainant failed to establish their claim and holding accordingly pass the following order :-
-:
ORDER :-
1. Complaint stands dismissed.
2. In the given circumstances, both parties to bear their own costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced Dated 30th July 2013.
[HON'BLE MR. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER dd.