State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance ... vs M/S Surjan Singh, Daltonganj & Another on 11 December, 2007
JHARKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RANCHI JHARKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RANCHI FA-623 of 2007 Against Judgment dated 07.03.2007, passed by Palamau District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Daltonganj, in Consumer Complaint no. 83 of 2006. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Appellant Vrs. M/s Surjan Singh, Daltonganj & another . Respondents For Appellant - Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate For Respondents - M/s Sanjay Kumar Pandey & Pankaj Kumar, Advocates Present Justice Gurusharan Sharma- President Mrs. Kalyani Kar Roy- Member
And Mr. Satyendra Kumar Gupta- Member Judgment Justice Sharma:
This appeal is directed against Judgment dated 07.03.2007, passed by Palamau District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Daltonganj, in Consumer Complaint no. 83 of 2006, whereby the Insurance Company- appellant herein was directed to pay Rs.4,48,000.00 with interest @ 8% per annum from 17.5.2004, i.e. the date of filing the claim before it till realisation of the amount to the complainant-respondent no.1 herein. It was also held that the Punjab National Bank-opposite party no.2- respondent no.2 herein was not liable.
2. The appeal was time barred. Hence the appellant has filed an application under Rule 8(4) of the State Rules for condonation of delay. According to the office report limitation expired on 6.4.2007, whereas the appeal was filed on 24.4.2007. It is stated that free copy of the impugned Judgment was not supplied by the District Consumer Forum and the appellant had to apply and obtain true copy on 12.3.2007 and thereafter some time was consumed in collecting relevant papers and obtaining opinion and permission to file appeal from the date of obtaining true copy of the impugned order. These statements are uncontroverted. In our view explanation given for the delay of twelve days is sufficient. Hence, delay is condoned.
3. According to the Complainant M/s Surjan Singh, is doing timber business at Daltonganj. The firm had also taken loan from Punjab National Bank and had taken Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy of Insurance bearing no.P.O.1416 of 2004 for the period from 10.3.2004 to 9.3.2005 from Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. for machine Rs.50,000.00 & Sawn wood and timber, Rs.7,50,000.00, total Rs.8 lacs.
4. Unfortunately, on 16.5.2004 fire took place in the Timber depot and timber & machine worth Rs.7,50,000.00 were burnt to ashes. On information fire brigade reached on spot & extinguished the fire.
5. Information was given to the Insurance Company through Punjab National Bank. A surveyor was deputed to assess the loss, who submitted his report on 15.12.2004. It is relevant to mention that complainant had submitted his total claim of Rs. eight lacs for loss of stock and machine (Rs. seven lacs and one lac respectively).
6. The Surveyor mentioned in his report that as per policy only machine and saw wood/timber were covered and wooden boxes were not covered and on detailed discussion & calculation of the stock of timber cost of burnt Chiran minus cost of Chhalta - cost of half damaged logs - cost of difference between inventory and stock of logs plus cost of machine minus salvage value thereof, gross loss was assessed at Rs.2,21,469.00 and net liability of the Insurance company was calculated at Rs.1,54,168.97 paise.
7. By cheque no.997706 dated 26.8.2005 issued in the name of Punjab National Bank, the Insurance Company paid Rs.1,38,000.00 towards the complainants claim of insured amount. According to the complainant it was very meager amount and the Insurer did so without considering merit of his case and claim.
8. The Insurance Company contested the complaint, interalia, on the ground that the policy covered only sawn wood & timber plus machine and that finished goods such as boxes were not covered. The surveyor made detailed analysis and assessment of loss sustained on account of fire, and accordingly payment towards complainants insurance claim was made.
9. We have occasion to peruse photocopy of the Insurance Policy in question, which has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the Memorandum of appeal. We find that at Page two in Column no.14 under the heading The insured policy is, the following have been written/mentioned Machine-50,000/- Sawn wood & Timber-7,50,000/- total 8,00,000/-. This fact is not denied by the complainant-respondent no.1. This policy was available before the District Consumer Forum and was marked as Ext 2. Forum observed in Paragraph 10 of the Judgment The O.P.no.1 has not produced any document to show that the finished goods including the boxes were not covered under the policy. On perusal of the Standard Fire & Special Peril Policy (Ext 2) we find that entire saw mill is insured the raw materials, finished goods, machine & Sawn wood are also insured. The Policy does not say that the finished goods does not come under sawn wood & is not covered under the Policy. In our opinion, the finished goods such as boxes are also covered under the policy and it comes under the definition of sawn wood. In the policy there is no mention that machine is also insured but the O.P. no.1 has assessed the loss of machine also. Similarly the loss of finished goods has also been considered by the surveyor and the O.P.no.1. The O.P.no.1 has not shown any document which can say that finished goods are not covered and therefore the report of surveyor on this point is not authentic and acceptable.
10. On the basis of stock statement of April 2004 given to the Bank, wherein 1600 boxes, value of which was Rs.4,48,000.00, the District Forum directed the Insurer to pay the said amount with interest to the complainant over and above the amount (Rs.1,38,000.00) already paid towards the insurance claim.
11. In our view the District Consumer Forum committed error of record in the observing, in presence of specific mention/entry in Clause 14 of the Insurance policy (Ext 2) that the Insurer failed to produce any document to prove that finished goods such as the boxes were not covered under the policy. Further, the Forum also failed to appreciate the Surveyors report dated 15.12.2004 properly and observed that the Surveyor also considered and assessed the loss caused to the finished goods overlooking the fact that the said surveyor has already mentioned in his report specifically that those finished goods were not covered under the policy. Another mistake committed by District Forum in observing that in the policy insurance of machine was not mentioned but the insurer assessed loss of machine in fire and paid insured amount, likewise payment should also have been done for loss of finished goods. In the policy it was specifically mentioned that machines were duly insured for Rs.one lac. We are of the view that the District Forum erred in holding that Surveyors report was not authentic and acceptable on account of aforesaid errors of record committed by it.
12. In the aforesaid circumstance and specially in view of Clause 14 of the Insurance Policy, we have no option but to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. In the result, the complaint stands dismissed. No costs.
The 11th December, 2007 Ranchi Member Member President