State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 15 June, 2016
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
(1) Consumer Complaint No.: 04/2006
Date of Presentation: 12.06.2006
Date of Decision: 15.06.2016
.....................................................................................
M/s. Shubh Timb Steels Limited,
Plots No.20-B, 22, 23, 24,
Industrial Area, Sector-1, Parwanoo,
Through its Director Shri Swapan Bansal.
... Complainant.
Versus
New India Assurance Company Limited,
Division No.III, SCO No.37-38,
Sector-17C, Chandigarh,
Through its Senior Divisional Manager.
...Opposite party.
.......................................................................................
For the Complainant: Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate
with Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate.
For the Opposite party: Mr. Ratish Sharma, Advocate
...................................................................................
(2)
Consumer Complaint No.: 05/2006
Date of Presentation: 12.06.2006
Date of Decision: 15.06.2016
.....................................................................................
M/s. Himachal Valley Products Pvt. Ltd.,
Plots No.20-B, 22, 23, 24,
Industrial Area, Sector-1, Parwanoo,
Through its Chief Executive Officer Shri Swapan Bansal.
... Complainant.
Versus
New India Assurance Company Limited,
Division No.III, SCO No.37-38,
Sector-17C, Chandigarh,
Through its Senior Divisional Manager.
...Opposite party.
.......................................................................................
For the Complainant: Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate
with Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate.
For the Opposite party: Mr. Ratish Sharma, Advocate
.....................................................................................
M/s. Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.04/2006)
&
M/s. Himachal Valley Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.05/2006)
&
M/s. Supreme Lumbers Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(C.C. No.06/2006)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AND
(3)
Consumer complaint No.: 06/2006
Date of Presentation: 12.06.2006
Date of Decision: 15.06.2016
.....................................................................................
M/s. Supreme Lumbers,
Plots No.20-B, 22, 23, 24,
Industrial Area, Sector-1, Parwanoo,
Through its Chief Executive Officer Shri Swapan Bansal.
... Complainant.
Versus
1. New India Assurance Company Limited,
Division No.III, SCO No.37-38,
Sector-17C, Chandigarh,
Through its Senior Divisional Manager.
2. National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Divisional Office No.III, SCO No.813,
NAC, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh.
3. Indian Overseas Bank,
Swastik Vihar, Mansa Devi Complex,
Panchkula.
...Opposite Parties.
.......................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Complainant: Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate
with Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate.
For Opposite party No.1: Mr. Ratish Sharma, Advocate.
For Opposite party No.2: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.
For Opposite party No.3: Mr. Sarveshwar Grover,
Assistant Manager.
.......................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) By this common order, we proceed to dispose of three complaints, filed by three separate 1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? 2
M/s. Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.04/2006) & M/s. Himachal Valley Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.05/2006) & M/s. Supreme Lumbers Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(C.C. No.06/2006)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- companies (legal entities), against the same insurance company, i.e. New India Assurance Company, with the addition of National Insurance Company, in one of the three complaints, i.e. Consumer Complaint No.06/2006, as the claims in all the three complaints, arise out of the same incident of fire that occurred in the premises, forming single premises.
2. Complaints were earlier decided by this Commission, by a common order dated 07.11.2007. Appeals were filed against the said order dated 07.11.2007, before the Hon'ble National Commission, by both the insurance companies. The Hon'ble National Commission, vide order dated 21.04.2016, has allowed the appeals and remanded the complaints, with the direction to decide all the three complaints afresh, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties and keeping in view the observation made by it, in its order. The observations that have been made by the Hon'ble National Commission are as follows:-
(i) That in complaint No.04/2006, there is a plea by the New India Assurance Company, opposite party No.1, that the complainant had accepted the money in full 3 M/s. Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.04/2006) & M/s. Himachal Valley Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.05/2006) & M/s. Supreme Lumbers Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(C.C. No.06/2006)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and final satisfaction of its claim and, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable.
ii) Plea of pecuniary jurisdiction has also been raised in complaint No.04/2006, but that has not been considered.
iii) In complaint No.06/2006, complainant claimed loss to the tune of `4,44,731/- only, in respect of plant & machinery, which was insured with the National Insurance Company, opposite party No.2, in complaint No.06/2006, but this Commission, while awarding a consolidated sum of `30,20,297/-, for loss to plant & machinery and stock etc., did not apportion liability between the opposite parties in its order.
iv) No reasons are given for discarding the Surveyor's report.
v) Documents, Annexures C-22 to C-32, relied upon by the complainants, for supporting their claim for higher amount, than worked out by the Surveyor, have not been discussed.
vi) The State Commission has observed that the Surveyor has allowed 40% depreciation on plant & machinery, whereas he has allowed depreciation at the rate of 5% per year.
4
M/s. Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.04/2006) & M/s. Himachal Valley Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.05/2006) & M/s. Supreme Lumbers Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(C.C. No.06/2006)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Facts, which need to be noticed for the disposal of three complaints, may be summed up like this. There are four industrial plots at Parwanoo, bearing Nos. 20-B, 22, 23, & 24. All these four plots have been enclosed by common boundary. In the combined area of these four plots, complainants in three complaints, who are separate legal entities, being separate private limited companies, are running their business of timber, plywood, boards etc.
4. Initially, all the three complainants had been insuring their stocks, building and machinery & plant with National Insurance Company. This fact is pertinent, because the documents regarding initial insurance, got done with National Insurance Company, are going to be discussed, while dealing with the plea raised by New India Assurance Company in its reply that the damaged stock and machinery & plant were located on a different plot, than the plot on which fire had taken place. According to the complainants, per specific averments in para-3 of all the complaints, functionaries of New India Assurance Company (opposite party No.1) allured and induced the 5 M/s. Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.04/2006) & M/s. Himachal Valley Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.05/2006) & M/s. Supreme Lumbers Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(C.C. No.06/2006)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- functionaries of complainants to switch over to their insurance company, for the purpose of insurance of their stock, machinery & plant, as also the building. New India Assurance Company in its reply to para-3, in all the three complaints, has though denied that there was any inducement, yet it has admitted that complainants were requested to switch over to their company for the insurance of their assets.
5. Thereafter, the complainants started getting their building, plant & machinery and stock insured with New India Assurance Company from the year 2002, onwards. In addition to insuring their all assets with New India Assurance Company, i.e. opposite party in all the three complaints, complainant, M/s. Supreme Lumbers, who have filed complaint No.6/2006, insured their plant & machinery, in the sum of `80.00 lacs, against policy dated 09.02.2005 with the National Insurance Company. Therefore, opposite party No.2, National Insurance Company, is concerned only with complaint No.o6/2006 and that too, with regard to alleged loss to the plant & machinery of the complainant, in complaint No.06/2006 and 6 M/s. Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.04/2006) & M/s. Himachal Valley Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.05/2006) & M/s. Supreme Lumbers Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(C.C. No.06/2006)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- admittedly, its liability, if any, is not beyond the damage caused to this asset.
6. On 17.04.2005, a fire broke out in the combined premises of four plots and assets of all the three complainants, as per their complaints, were damaged. The detail of loss, suffered by all the three complainants, due to fire, is as follows:-
Complaint No.4/2006 titled as M/s. Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd.:
i) Stock = `5.00 lacs.
ii) Plant & machinery = `2,98,394/-.
iii) Building = `7,11,000/-.
Complaint No.5 titled as M/s Himachal Valley Products Pvt. Ltd. versus New India Assurance Company Ltd.:
i) Stock = `6,43,325/-.
ii) Plant & machinery = `4,23,979/-
Complaint No.6/2006 titled as M/s.
Supreme Lumbers Versus New India Assurance Company & Ors.:
i) Stock = `25,75,566/-
ii) Plant & machinery = `4,44,731/-.
7
M/s. Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.04/2006) & M/s. Himachal Valley Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.05/2006) & M/s. Supreme Lumbers Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(C.C. No.06/2006)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Intimation of the fire incident was given to both the insurance companies, promptly. A common Surveyor was deputed by both the companies, who submitted report dated 04 th October, 2005. Surveyor assessed the loss as follows:-
Complaint No.04/2006:
i) Loss of stock = `1,78,410/-
ii) Plant & machinery = `78,040/-
iii) Building = `1,40,784/-
Complaint No.05/2006:
i) Loss of stock = `5,47,708/-
ii) Plant & machinery = `1,95,000/-
Complaint No.06/2006:
i) Loss of stock = `17,00,338/-
ii) Plant & machinery = `2,08,900/-
8. Both the insurers repudiated the claims of the complainants in complaints No.5 & 6. As regards the claim of M/s. Shubh Timb Steels Ltd., complainant in complaint No.04/2006, the insurer i.e. New India Assurance Company, paid a sum of `3,85,810/-, i.e. the sum total of loss, as assessed 8 M/s. Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.04/2006) & M/s. Himachal Valley Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.05/2006) & M/s. Supreme Lumbers Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(C.C. No.06/2006)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- by the Surveyor on account of stock, plant & machinery and building.
9. Complainants in complaints No.5 & 6 were not satisfied with the reasons and grounds stated by the insurer for repudiation of their claims. The sole ground for repudiation of claims was that whereas as per insurance policies, the location of stock and plant & machinery, as also the building was described as plot No.20-B (in respect of complaint No.6/2006), plot No.23 (in respect of complaint No.5/2006), the fire had broken out and was confined only to plot No.24 and since plot No.24 was not included in the description of location, the insurers were not liable to indemnify the complainants.
10. Complainant in complaint No.04/2006 was not satisfied with the quantum of money, paid to him, on account of loss, as according to him, he had suffered loss to the tune of `15,09,394/-, whereas he had been paid only a sum of `3,85,810/-, which he received towards partial satisfaction of his claim. So, all the complainants filed three separate complaints.
9
M/s. Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.04/2006) & M/s. Himachal Valley Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.05/2006) & M/s. Supreme Lumbers Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(C.C. No.06/2006)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. The complaints have been contested by the insurance companies. National Insurance Company, who is impleaded as opposite party No.2, only in complaint No.06/2006, alongwith New India Assurance Company, has stated that since the complainants had purchased policy, insuring plant & machinery, located on plot No.20-B and the fire had taken place on plot No.24 and was confined only to that plot, question of its indemnifying the complainant did not arise.
12. New India Assurance Company, who is opposite party, in all the three complaints, took the plea that M/s. Shubh Timb Steels Ltd., complainant in complaint No.04/2006, had received money as assessed by the Surveyor, in full and final satisfaction of its claim and, therefore, complaint was not maintainable. Plea of pecuniary jurisdiction was also raised. Several other technical pleas were raised, which we need not notice because those are not pressed. On merits, it was stated that fire had broken out and was confined only to plot No.24 and since the complainant in complaint No.5/2006, i.e. M/s. Himachal Valley Products Private Ltd. and complainant in complaint No.06/2006, M/s Supreme 10 M/s. Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.04/2006) & M/s. Himachal Valley Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.05/2006) & M/s. Supreme Lumbers Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(C.C. No.06/2006)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lumbers, had got insured their stock and plant/machinery, located on plots No.23 and 20-B, respectively, and not any plant or machinery and stock available on plot No.24, they had no legitimate and lawful claim against it.
13. Earlier complaints were decided by a common order, because of the reason noticed in the beginning of this order, as also for the reason that the counsel for the parties also submitted that questions of law and facts involved in these three complaints, being common, the same be dealt with and decided together by a common order. Today also, counsel for the parties have submitted that it would be convenient and also in the interest of justice, if all the three matters are dealt with and decided by a common order.
14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
15. First we will be taking up the issue whether the complainants in complaints No.5 & 6 have no locus-standi to claim indemnification for the loss of assets, located on plot No.24, which are alleged to have been damaged and the Surveyor has also admitted to have been damaged, in the 11 M/s. Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.04/2006) & M/s. Himachal Valley Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.05/2006) & M/s. Supreme Lumbers Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(C.C. No.06/2006)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- fire incident. It is urged by the counsel representing both the insurers, i.e. National Insurance Company and New India assurance Company that as per cover note and policy marked, Annexure R-2, in Complaint No.05/2006, the property located on plot No.23 alone, had been insured with the New India Assurance Company. Similarly, they have urged that in case of Complaint No.06/2006, the complainant had got insured the assets, located on plot No.20-B only, as is made out from policy, Annexure C-7, issued by the National Insurance Company and policy Annexure R-2, issued by New India Assurance Company (these policies are available in the record of Complaint No.06/2006).
16. It is true that in the insurance policies, upon which the claims in complaints No.05/2006 and 06/2006 are based, describe the property, where the assets are located, as plot No.23 (in respect of Complaint No.05/2006) and plot No.20-B (in respect of Complaint No.06/2006) and also, it is true that fire had broken out and remained confined to plot No.24 only, but this alone, cannot be the basis for repudiation of claim of the complainants in complaints No. 05/2006 & 06/2006. 12
M/s. Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.04/2006) & M/s. Himachal Valley Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.05/2006) & M/s. Supreme Lumbers Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(C.C. No.06/2006)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We have to look into this aspect of the matter in the background that initially the complainants had been insuring their assets with National Insurance Company.
17. We have one of the initial policies, available with us on the record of Complaint No.06/2006, which is marked Annexure C-8. This policy was purchased by the complainant, in complaint No.06/2006, and the situation of risk of occupancy is recorded as plots No.22, 23, 24 & 20B, Sector-1, Parwanoo. It is not in dispute that the complainants switched over to the New India Assurance Company from the National Insurance Company, on being approached by the representatives of New India Assurance Company. As already noticed in para -3 of the complaint, the complainants have very categorically stated that they were induced and allured by the representatives of new India Assurance Company to get their assets insured with the New India Assurance Company, instead of continuing with National Insurance Company, and the New India Assurance Company, in its reply, though denies the allegation of allurement or inducement, yet it has 13 M/s. Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.04/2006) & M/s. Himachal Valley Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.05/2006) & M/s. Supreme Lumbers Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(C.C. No.06/2006)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- admitted that the complainants were requested to get their assets insured with New India Assurance Company. This apart, on the record of complaint No.05/2006, we find cover note of the insurance, which was done by the New India Assurance Company, for the first time, in the year 2002, after the complainant switched over from National Insurance Company to its company. This cover note is Annexure C-12 (in Complaint No.05/2006). In the cover note, it is very categorically recorded that the property was located on plots No. 23, 24 & 20-B. That means, when the complainant got its assets insured with New India Assurance Company, for the first time, it conveyed to the said insurance company that its assets were located on Plots No. 23, 24 & 20-B. Policy, under which the claim has been lodged, was issued in continuation of the first insurance, got done vide cover note Annexure C-12, referred to above. Of course, cover notes were also prepared in respect of the renewed policies, but none of the cover notes bear the signatures of the complainant.
18. Learned counsel representing the opposite parties submit that in the policies, on 14 M/s. Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.04/2006) & M/s. Himachal Valley Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.05/2006) & M/s. Supreme Lumbers Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(C.C. No.06/2006)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- which the claims are based, it is specifically mentioned that the assets were located on plots No.23 (in case of complaint No.05/2006) and plot No.20-B (in case of complaint No.06/2006) and that policies were duly supplied to the complainants and this fact is required to be taken as established as the complainants themselves have submitted the copies of policies with their complaints. It is true that the complainants can be presumed to have been supplied the copies of the insurance policies/ insurance certificates, but it is a matter of common knowledge that when insurance is done in continuation of the previous insurance, nobody bothers to go into the details, particularly with regard to the location at risk.
19. Another submission made on behalf of the National Insurance Company is that no plant & machinery of the complainants was located on plot No.24. Surveyor deputed by the National Insurance Company has reported that machine and plants of all the three complainants, were located on plot No.24 and the same were damaged in the fire incident. So, the contention of the insurers that they are not liable for indemnifying the 15 M/s. Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.04/2006) & M/s. Himachal Valley Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.05/2006) & M/s. Supreme Lumbers Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(C.C. No.06/2006)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- complainants, in complaints No.05/2006 & 06/2006, on account of location of their insured assets, having been recorded different in the policies, from the location where the fire had taken place, is rejected.
20. Counsel representing the insurers insist that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Polymat India (P) Limited and Another Versus National Insurance Company Limited and Others , (2005) 9 Supreme Court Cases 174, and the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in National Insurance Company Limited Versus Venketshwera Distributors & Another II ( 2011) CPJ 120(NC) and Oriental Insurance Company V/S P.R. Automobiles & Oils & Another, I(2010) COJ 83 (NC), the view, which is being taken by this Commission, is not correct. While taking the aforesaid view, we had in our mind the aforesaid three judgments, as reference was made to them in the course of hearing of these matters, yet we did not discuss them for the reasons that the facts and circumstances of the cases, before us, are totally different from the fact and circumstances of the cases, relied upon as 16 M/s. Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.04/2006) & M/s. Himachal Valley Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.05/2006) & M/s. Supreme Lumbers Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(C.C. No.06/2006)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- precedents. In the precedents, relied upon, policies were purchased for the first time and, therefore, what was described in the policies, became the basis for upholding the insurer's plea.
21. Now, we proceed to deal with the three complaints individually, for the purpose of examining, as to what amount of money the complainants are entitled, on account of loss sustained by them. It is submitted on behalf of the complainant in Complaint No.06/2006, i.e. M/s. Supreme Lumbers, that it would be satisfied, in case only that much amount of money, as assessed by the Surveyor, is directed to be paid. Surveyor has assessed the loss on account of stock at `16,91,438/-, after making cut on account of excess clause. The stock was insured with the New India Assurance Company, i.e. opposite party No.1. As regards plant & machinery, the surveyor has assessed the loss at `2,08,900/-. Plant and machinery was insured with the National Insurance Company and, therefore, this amount of money is payable by the National Insurance Company, impleaded as opposite party No.2 in complaint No.06/2006.
17
M/s. Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.04/2006) & M/s. Himachal Valley Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.05/2006) & M/s. Supreme Lumbers Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(C.C. No.06/2006)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Complainant No.05/2006: In this case also, learned counsel representing the complainant submits that complainant would be satisfied if the amount of loss, as assessed by the Surveyor is ordered to be paid. Surveyor has assessed the loss to the stock and plant & machinery, in this case, to the tune of `7,32,708/-. Stock and plant/machinery of this complaint was insured only with the New India Assurance Company and, therefore, the liability to pay the aforesaid amount of money is that of New India Assurance Company only.
23. Complainant No.04/2006: In this case, the complainant claims that it had sustained loss to the tune of `5.00 lacs in respect of stock; `2,98,394/-, in respect of plant & machinery and `7,11,000/-, in respect of building. The total amount of loss, claimed by it, is `15,09,394/-. Surveyor deputed by the opposite party assessed the loss at `3,87,234/-, against which the opposite party paid a sum of `3,85,810/- only to the complainant. The case of the opposite party is that aforesaid amount of `3,85,810/-, has been received by the complainant, in full and final satisfaction of its claim, while the complainant says that it received 18 M/s. Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.04/2006) & M/s. Himachal Valley Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.05/2006) & M/s. Supreme Lumbers Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(C.C. No.06/2006)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the amount, by way of partial satisfaction of its claim. Our attention has been drawn to two vouchers, both marked Annexure R-8, available on the record of complaint No.04/2006. Both the vouchers are similarly worded. Against one voucher a sum of `2,45,081/-, has been paid and against the other a sum of `1,40,729/-, has been paid. Both the vouchers are on printed format and are computer generated. What is written in these vouchers is that the complainant agrees to accept the money in full/partial satisfaction and discharge of its claim. Neither the word 'full' nor 'partial' has been scored out. Had the complainant accepted the amounts, mentioned in the vouchers in full satisfaction and discharge of claim, word 'partial' should have been scored out. These documents have come from the custody of opposite party itself. Therefore, opposite party's plea that the aforesaid amount of money was received by the complainant in full and final satisfaction of claim, cannot be accepted.
24. Our attention has been drawn to the Surveyor report with regard to claim of complainant in this case. Against the claim for `5.00 lacs, for the stock of timber, Surveyor has assessed loss at 19 M/s. Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.04/2006) & M/s. Himachal Valley Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.05/2006) & M/s. Supreme Lumbers Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(C.C. No.06/2006)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- `1,78,410/-. As a matter of fact, the Surveyor in his report has himself admitted that value of the stock was `8,05,264/-. His report is Annexure R-6. Reference may be made to para 12.3 of his report. However, he has reduced the value to 25% of the aforesaid amount, with the observation that stock had been lying with the complainant for the last six years. At the same time, he has recorded that this stock was of high grade, like Pine Timber, Maple Boards etc. Merely for the reason that stock remained unsold, for the last six years, its value could not be said to have come down to just 25%. It is a matter of common knowledge that value of timber has been increasing day by day and, therefore, the book value of stock, which was `8,05,264/-, can be said to have gone up during the period of six years, when it remained unsold. It is not in dispute that entire stock was gutted, in fire. Stock was insured only for a sum of `5.00 lacs, though its value was `8,05,264/-. Therefore, in view of average clause in the policy, complainant is to bear the loss, proportionate to the actual value of stock and the amount, by which the stock was under insured. He is, therefore, entitled to an 20 M/s. Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.04/2006) & M/s. Himachal Valley Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.05/2006) & M/s. Supreme Lumbers Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(C.C. No.06/2006)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- amount, equivalent to 62% of the sum insured, which comes to `3,10,000/-.
25. Loss alleged by the complainant, in respect of plant and machinery is to the tune of `2,98,314/-. Surveyor has assessed the loss at `78,040/-. Surveyor has reduced the value of the entire plant & machinery by 50%, on account of depreciation and thereafter, he has again applied a cut of 50%, on account of depreciation while working out the money, payable on account of expenditure, incurred on the replacement of damaged parts of machinery. This way, he has applied the cut twice. Otherwise, the Surveyor does not dispute in his report that a sum of `2,98,394/-, has been spent on repair of the plant and machinery. This amount of `2,98,394/-, spent on replacement of damaged parts is, however, required to be reduced by 50%, on account of depreciation, because the parts, damaged due to fire, which have been replaced, were admittedly twenty seven years old and the same are now replaced by new parts. This way, the amount of loss to the plant and machinery comes down to `1,49,197/-.
21
M/s. Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.04/2006) & M/s. Himachal Valley Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.05/2006) & M/s. Supreme Lumbers Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(C.C. No.06/2006)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. As regards damage to the building, against the claim of `7,11,000/-, Surveyor has assessed the loss at `1,40,784/-. Surveyor has reduced the value of building by 50%, on account of depreciation. Report of Surveyor, as also the estimates and some vouchers, relied upon by the complainant, show that most of the items, which required replacement for restoring the building to its original position, are in the nature of asbestos sheets, steel trusses, fiber sheets etc. and certain amount of money has been spent/is required on account on labour charges. Surveyor has assessed the salvage value of the material at `90,016/.
27. Keeping in view the nature of material, used in the damaged portion of building, i.e. asbestos sheets, steel trusses, fiber sheets etc., we are of the view that if not more, the material which would be required for restoring the building to its original shape, would have undergone 60% depreciation. So, we reduce the amount, claimed by the complainant for damage to the building by 60%, and further reduce this amount by a sum of `90,016/-, on account of value of salvage. The amount payable on this count comes down to 22 M/s. Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.04/2006) & M/s. Himachal Valley Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.05/2006) & M/s. Supreme Lumbers Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(C.C. No.06/2006)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- `2,94,384/-. Thus the total amount of money, payable to the complainant, in complaint No.04/2016, comes to `3,10,000 - `12,840 (value of salvage) = `2,97,160/- on account of loss of stock; `1,49,197 - `5852 (salvage value) = `1,43,345/-, on account of loss of plant and machinery and `2,98,160/-, on account of damage to the building. The total comes to `7,38,665/-.
28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, as also the submission by the learned counsel for the complainants in complaints No.05/2006 and 06/2006 that the loss, as assessed by the Surveyor is acceptable to the complainants, in these complaints, we need not look into Annexures C-22 to C-32, which the Hon'ble National Commission has specifically directed to be taken into consideration, while assessing the quantum of loss.
29. It is true that in this complaint the complainant has claimed a sum of `14.00 lacs only, on account of insurance money, but he has also claimed compensation and interest and the sum total of its claim exceeds `20.00 lacs. Therefore, the plea of the opposite party that the relief is overvalued and hence, this Commission lacks 23 M/s. Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.04/2006) & M/s. Himachal Valley Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.05/2006) & M/s. Supreme Lumbers Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(C.C. No.06/2006)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- pecuniary jurisdiction, is not acceptable. Otherwise also, when there were three companies in the same premises and their insured assets were damaged in the same incident of fire, it was desirable that all the complaints were dealt with by the same Consumer Disputes Redressal body, to avoid conflicting judgments.
30. As a sequence to the aforesaid discussion and conclusions, we direct as follows:
Complaint No.4/2006:
31. Opposite party, i.e. New India Assurance Company, shall pay to the complainant a sum of `7,38,665 - `3,85,810 (already paid) = `3,52,855/-, on account of insurance money, with interest at the rate of 9%, per annum, from the date of filing of complaint, to the date of payment of the aforesaid amount of money and shall also pay `25,000/-, as compensation and an equal amount of money on account of costs. We direct that sum total of the insurance money, interest payable thereon, compensation and costs, shall be paid to the complainant, within thirty days, from the date of receipt of copy of this order as the matter has already been prolonged for too long. 24
M/s. Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.04/2006) & M/s. Himachal Valley Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.05/2006) & M/s. Supreme Lumbers Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(C.C. No.06/2006)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complaint No.05/2006:
32. Opposite party, i.e. New India Assurance Company is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of `7,32,708/-, on account of insurance money, with interest at the rate of 9%, per annum, from the date of filing of complaint, to the date of payment of the aforesaid amount of money and also to pay `50,000/-, as compensation and `25,000/-, on account of costs. We direct that sum total of the insurance money, interest payable thereon, compensation and costs, shall be paid to the complainant, within thirty days, from the date of receipt of copy of this order as the matter has already been prolonged for too long.
Complaint No.06 of 2006:
33. Opposite party No.1, i.e. New India Assurance Company is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of `16,91,438/-, with interest at the rate of 9%, per annum, from the date of filing of complaint, to the date of payment of the aforesaid amount of money and also to pay `75,000/-, as compensation and `25,000/-, on account of costs. Opposite party No.2, i.e. National Insurance Company, is directed to pay a sum of `2,08,900/-, 25 M/s. Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.04/2006) & M/s. Himachal Valley Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(C.C. No.05/2006) & M/s. Supreme Lumbers Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(C.C. No.06/2006)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- with interest at the rate of 9%, per annum, from the date of filing of complaint, to the date of payment of the aforesaid amount of money and also to pay `15,000/-, as compensation and `25,000/-, as costs. We direct that sum total of the insurance money, interest payable thereon, compensation and costs, shall be paid to the complainant within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, as the matter has already been prolonged for too long.
34. A copy of the order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member June 15, 2016.
GAURAV} 26