National Consumer Disputes Redressal
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Ors. vs Kusum Distributors And Anr. on 8 August, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2(2007)CPJ31(NC)
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.12.2004 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Orissa, Cuttack disposing of the complaint with direction to the appellant / opposite party - Insurance Company to make fresh survey of the loss sustained by respondent No. 1/complainant on account of burglary on the basis of purchase invoices filed along with the rejoinder.
2. Facts giving rise to this appeal lie in a narrow compass. Respondent No. 1, a trader dealing in household articles purchased policy No. 4855030108469 to cover the stocks also against the peril of burglary from the appellant-Insurance Company. It was alleged that in the intervening night of lst/2nd June, 2001, there was burglary in the shop-cum-godown and stocks worth about Rs. 3,25,000 was stolen. Incident was reported to the police as also Insurance Company. Appellant deputed a Surveyor to assess the loss. In final report, the Surveyor recommended for settlement of claim at Rs. 77,409.47. Respondent No. 1 alleged that it could not produce the purchase invoices which would have shown that the amount of loss as finally assessed by Surveyor was too low. Appellant-Insurance Company alleged that ultimately loss was assessed at Rs. 58,056 on non-standard basis and that amount was accepted by respondent No. 1 towards full and final settlement and complaint was, thus, not maintainable.
3. Submission advanced by Mr. A.K. Raina for appellant-Insurance Company was two-fold. First, after the Surveyor in the report dated 2.1.2002 had finally assessed the loss on non-standards basis at Rs. 58,056, the State Commission ought not to have directed the appellant-Insurance Company to re-assess the loss on basis of purchase invoices filed along with the rejoinder on 18.8.2004 by respondent No. 1. Second, amount of Rs. 58,056 had been received against discharge voucher(s) towards full and final settlement of claim by respondent No. 1 and, thus, complaint itself was not maintainable.
Copy of report dated 2.1.2002 of Sanjeev Kumar and Associates, Surveyors is placed at pp 14-18. Part of this report under the heading "About books of accounts, documents maintained and submitted" which is material, is reproduced below:
(i) The only books of accounts and documents the insured submitted before us for verification is the purchase bills, sales bills, purchase register and sales register for the period from 1.4.2001 to 2.6.2001 (date of burglary), though, we have asked for the purchase, sales and stock records from 31.3.2000 to the date of loss to analyse the trend of business to help us to assess the loss.
(ii) The insured informed us through the letter dated 13.11.2001 that the documents prior to 1.4.2001 is being(?) missing since the date of burglary, but to our surprise the insured has also submitted us the Balance Sheet of March 2000 and 2001, which are being audited on 25.9.2001 and 2.11.2001 respectively. Therefore, the documents, i.e., are either fake or the insured intentionally not submitting the records.
(iii) It is a matter of surprise that the insured has also filed the Income Tax Returns of March 2000 and March 2001 on 12.11.2001 and on 18.11.2001 respectively.
Therefore, the only document produced by the insured useful for the assessment of the loss is the purchase bills, from 1.4.2001 and 2.6.2001.
4. Report further notices that insured had not submitted the basic minimum records for the assessment of loss and, therefore, settlement of claim on non-standard basis is recommended.
5. Complaint was filed by respondent No. 1 sometime in May 2002. Purchase invoices on the basis whereof re-assessment of loss was ordered to be made by the State Commission were filed along with rejoinder on 18.8.2004. There is time gap of more than two years in filing purchase invoices after the institution of complaint and of more than two years and eight months after submitting of report by Sanjeev Kumar and Associates, Surveyors. We are not convinced of the explanation as given in rejoinder regarding filing of purchase invoices at such a belated stage. There was no deficiency in service on part of appellant in settling the claim as recommended by the said Surveyors based on the documentary proof provided by respondent No. 1. In our view, the order of State Commission requiring the Insurance Company to re-assess the loss on basis of aforesaid purchase vouchers was totally uncalled for and that order deserves to be set aside under Section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
6. This brings us to second limb of contention referred to above. In terms of the letter dated 15.3.2002 (copy at p-20), the Insurance Company informed respondent No. 1 that claim had been settled for Rs. 58,036 towards full and final settlement and later was asked to furnish the loss vouchers duly discharged to enable the Insurance Company to issue cheque for that amount. In response to this letter, the respondent No. 1 sent letter dated 21.3.2002 (copy at p-21), the contents whereof after omitting immaterial portion, are reproduced below:
In reference to your aforesaid letter No. 2708, I am enclosing the loss voucher duly signed for your kind acceptance and request you to please issue the account payee cheque in my favour for the said amount of Rs. 58,056 against our claim vide policy No. 4855030108469.
The Allahabad Bank has already returned to you the original loss voucher duly executed by them.
7. It seems that insured stock was hypothecated with Allahabad Bank. To be only noted that said letter dated 21.3.2002 is conspicuously silent that amount of Rs. 58,056 was being received under protest. In the complaint, copy whereof has been made available during the course of argument, it was not even pleaded that amount of Rs. 58,056 was received under any coercion or undue influence by respondent No. 1. There is, thus, considerable merit in the submission advanced by Mr. Raina, Adv. that Rs. 58,056 was received towards full and final settlement and complaint itself was, thus, not maintainable.
For the foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed and aforesaid order dated 20.12.2004 is set aside and complaint dismissed. No order as to cost.