State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mas Laxmi Rice Mill, Represented ... vs 1.Branch Manager,Oriental Insurance ... on 8 September, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: ORISSA: CUTTACK CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO.134 OF 2007 Mas Laxmi Rice Mill, represented through its Proprietor Sri Ramesh Chandra Jena, aged about 47 years, son of Damaodar Jena, At/P.O. Angula, P.S. Soro, Dist. Balasore ... Complainant Versus 1. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Bhadrak Branch, Main Road, At/P.O./Dist. Bhadrak 2. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., F.M. College Road, At/P.O./Dist. Balasore 3. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Oriental House, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 4. Branch Manager, State Bank Of India, Soro Branch At/P.O. Soro, Dist. Balasore ... Opposite Parties For Complainant - Mr. U.C. Behera For Opp. Parties - Mr. G.P. Dutta P R E S E N T : THE HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SAMANTARAY, PRESIDENT AND SHRIMATI SMARITA MOHANTY, MEMBER O R D E R
DATE:- The 8th September, 2011.
Justice A.K. Samantaray, President.
This is a consumer complaint under section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the complainant Mas Laxmi Rice Mill, represented through its proprietor Ramesh Chandra Jena. The complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in insurance service as against opposite parties 1 to 3 and banking service against opposite party no.4. The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.27,50,000/- towards the cost of the rice burnt in fire and Rs.2,50,000/- for the loss sustained to the building, which are covered under the insurance policy issued by opposite party no.3.
2. There is no dispute as regards the validity of the coverage of Insurance Policy No.345701/2007/2001, which covered the period from 12.04.2006 to 11.04.2007. The policy was for Rs.40,00,000/- towards machineries and Rs.50,00,000/- towards the stock of rice. According to the complainant, fire broke out in the godown of the mill on 25.09.2006. Immediately, the complainant called the fire brigade, who arrived at the spot and extinguished the fire. It is stated in the complaint that there was stock of 3155 quintals of rice in the godown and the same was burnt in fire. The cost of the stock comes to Rs.27,50,000/- and the complainant has claimed the said amount. It is the further case of the complainant that immediately after the incident of fire, he informed the Branch Manager of opposite party no.4 branch, from which he had availed loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/- and also informed the incident to the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company in its turn appointed a surveyor, who visited the spot, i.e., the rice mill premises of the complainant, on 29.09.2006. On 16.10.2006 the surveyor asked the complainant to produce documents. Accordingly, the complainant produced the same. But the Insurance Company did not settle the claim of the complainant, for which on 22.05.2007 the complainant served a lawyers notice on the opposite parties. Despite that the claim was not settled. Ultimately, on 12.10.2007 the complainant filed the consumer complaint before this Commissiosn.
3. In response to the notice issued by this Commission, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed written version admitting the fact of fire and coverage of the policy. They, however, stated that the quantum claimed by the complainant was not acceptable to them. The Insurance Company in their written version annexed the copy of the report submitted by the surveyor on 17.04.2007 wherein the surveyor had assessed the loss at Rs.3,42,9121/- towards damage to the stock and Rs.41,310/- towards damage to the building. After compulsory deduction, the net loss was calculated at Rs.3,64,222/-, which goes to show that the Insurance Company admits their liability to this extent only.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that the survey report is arbitrary, mala fide and the outcome of non-application of mind, for which it should be rejected and the loss should be assessed on the basis of the documents filed by the complainant. He further submitted that the surveyor in his report has referred to the sales tax returns of September, 2006, whereas in his report he has mentioned that he had verified the tax return up to 31.08.2006. This shows total non-application of mind on his part and on this score alone the report submitted by him has to be rejected. He further pointed out that at page 18 of the report the surveyor he has specifically mentioned that the closing stock of paddy as on 31.05.2005 was 8673.90 quintals. Since the incident of fire occurred on 25.06.2006, the surveyor should have referred to the closing stock of that period, not the period which was/is in no way related to the case at hand. The complainant had filed the stock register, sales tax register and the certificate issued by the Collector and District Magistrate of the District under the Orissa Rice and Paddy Procurement (Levy) Restriction of Sale and Movement Order, 1982, which reflects that on the date of fire incident, there was stock of rice, worth of which was Rs.27,50,000/-. He further submitted that the registers and the certificate issued by the District Magistrate under the aforesaid Order are the documents maintained in due course of business and under the Statute should have been accepted. Thus the survey report should be rejected.
5. The surveyors report is on record and we have perused the same. The surveyor had visited the spot on 29.09.2006, which is just after the date of fire incident. He has given all the reasons in support of his finding. Law is well settled that surveyors report is an important piece of evidence and should not be discarded lightly and on flimsy grounds. In the instant matter, we find absolutely no reason to discard or reject the report of the surveyor. After several visits and with cogent reasons the surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs.3,64,222/-.
6. The incident occurred on 25.09.2006 and the claim was not settled by the Insurance Company till 12.10.2007, which is more than a year. Considering this aspect, we direct the Insurance Company-opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay the loss assessed by the surveyor, i.e., Rs.3,64,222/-, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim till the actual payment. We further direct the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service, i.e., for non-settlement of the claim within a reasonable time. Towards cost of litigation, we direct the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-. The aforesaid amounts should be paid within two months from the date of communication of this order.
7. The complaint petition stands allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
.......
(Justice A.K. Samantaray) President Sd/-
........
(Smarita Mohanty) Member SCDRC, Orissa, Cuttack September 8 ,2011/Nayak