Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Nayagarh Sugar Complex Limited vs Sbi General Insurance Company Limited on 23 August, 2022
Author: Bela M. Trivedi
Bench: Bela M. Trivedi
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. 6010 OF 2019
NAYAGARH SUGAR COMPLEX LIMITED APPELLANT
VERSUS
SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED RESPONDENT
O R D E R
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the appellant-Nayaagarh Sugar Complex Limited had complied with Clause 6(i) of the Insurance Policy, in view of the letter dated 03.08.2013, which refers to the telephonic conversation on the date. The letter was physically delivered to the office of the respondent-SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. (“Insurance Company” for short) on 05.08.2013.
The Insurance Company acting upon the letter had, in fact, appointed a surveyor, which indicates that they did not find any violation of Clause 6(i) of the Insurance Policy. Relevant portion of the letter dated 03.08.2013 reads:
“……Please refer to our telephonic discussion today, we had with you on the above subject. We would like to bring to your kind notice that due to heavy rain fall and flood in the district of Nayagarh last about 10 days, the asbestos roof of the factory got damaged & also the rain water flowing from the mountain side entered into the factory premises and sugar godown. As a result huge quantity of Signature Not Verified sugar kept inside the godown, machinery and tools of the Digitally signed by factory with stocks of other consumables have been severely damaged and washed out. In the mean while we are arranging BABITA PANDEY Date: 2022.08.27 13:14:42 IST Reason: to repair the roof of the factory, godown and also repair drains in order to protect the property from further losses………” 2 The appellant, in the complaint filed before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, had averred that the factory was inspected by the officers from the Central Excise Department on 06.08.2013. The report of the Excise Officers was placed on record before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
As per the appellant, the factory could not be opened for inspection and surveyed from 07.08.2013 till 20.08.2013, on account of agitation by the farmers, as news had spread that the farmers would not be paid their dues on account of loss of sugar. It is to be noted that the surveyor had visited the factory on 27.08.2013 and joint minutes were prepared, which record that there was an approximate loss of about 14,801 quintals of sugar. The joint minutes do not mention any attempt by the appellant to obstruct or deliberately delay the inspection and verification by the surveyor.
The surveyor gave his report only on 11.02.2014, in which it was mentioned that he had got in touch with the director of the appellant company on 06.08.2013, but told that because of the farmers’ agitation, the factory gates had been closed by vested persons and, therefore, it was not possible to tend to the job immediately. The agitation, it is stated, was called off on 20.08.2013. In our view, it was the duty of the surveyor or the insurance company to have verified the allegation regarding agitation by farmers and that the inspection/survey was, in fact, not possible from 07.08.2013 to 20.08.2013. However, the factum that due to heavy rains and floods some loss was caused cannot be denied. These facts, somewhat inconsistent, do leave us perplexed 3 as to the correct factual position in view of the report by the Central Excise Department and the joint minutes dated 27.08.2013.
Further, there is difficulty regarding the quantification of the loss suffered by the appellant. This exercise has not been undertaken by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. The onus to establish and prove the loss suffered is on the appellant.
In view of the aforesaid position, we are of the opinion that the matter should be remitted for fresh decision by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. We also feel that the appellant should be directed to place on record a copy of the balance sheets for the year in question, and three prior and later years, with copy of the excise registers and sale and purchase ledgers, for the same period, to establish and justify the loss. The communications between the appellant, the excise department and the civil supplies department on the quantity of sugar manufactured, loss of manufactured levy and free sale sugar etc. should also be placed on record, with the affidavit. The respondent-insurance company would be entitled to respond, to the details and particulars. To what extent the survey report and the minutes dated 27.08.2013 can be relied upon, will be examined with the evidence lead by the parties.
Recording the aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order to the extent that it holds that there was a violation of Clause 6(i) of the Insurance Policy. However, on the aspects of quantification of loss, if any etc., we restore the matter to the file of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to examine the case 4 on merits and decide the same in accordance with law. We clarify that the observations only relate to Clause 6(i) of the Insurance Policy, and no finality should be attached on any other aspects. To cut short the delay, the parties are directed to appear before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 11.10.2022, when the date of hearing would be fixed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
……………………………………………J. (SANJIV KHANNA) ……………………………………………J. (BELA M. TRIVEDI) NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 23, 2022.
5
ITEM NO.14 COURT NO.13 SECTION XVII-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 6010/2019
(Arising out of the impugned final order dated 09.05.2019 passed by the Ld. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in Consumer Case No. 1451 of 2015) NAYAGARH SUGAR COMPLEX LIMITED Appellant(s) VERSUS SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Respondent(s) Date : 23-08-2022 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI For Appellant(s) Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR Mr. Bhuwan Raj, Adv.
Mr. Solomon, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Varadaranjan, Adv.
Mr. Shiv Prakash Pandey, AOR UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(BABITA PANDEY) (DIPTI KHURANA)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)