National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Gammon India Ltd. vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 30 July, 2002
Equivalent citations: I(2004)CPJ10(NC)
ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. This complaint pertains to insurance claim and was filed on 18.4.95. Complainant had taken insurance policy from the opposite-party, insurer for insuring the "P3 well foundation for the Road Bridge" across the river Siang at Ranaghat (Passighat) Arunachal Pradesh. The policy was for a sum of Rs. 32 lakhs for a period from 20.7.91 to 19.4.92. On account of flash flood on 9.8.91 "P3 well" got titled and shifted and complainant says further rectification of well was carried out incurring a total expenditure of Rs. 26,21,631/-. This loss was notified to the Insurance Company by letter dated 10.8.91 of the complainant. Insurance Company appointed Mr. D.K. Borah, surveyor to assess the loss. Complainant says it wrote repeated letters to the Insurance Company right from 30.10.91 to 26.12.94 but its claim was not settled. This led to filing of the complaint.
2. On receiving notice of filing of the complaint, Insurance Company filed its written version. It denied the claim of the complainant altogether. Along with written version Insurance Company also filed report dated 1.7.94 of Mr. D.K. Borah assessing the loss at Rs. 18,35,938/-. This report of the surveyor, it appears, was not furnished to the complainant by the Insurance Company. Thereafter, Insurance Company appointed another surveyor - M/s. Inder Chadha & Associates who gave their report on 14.2.96. After receiving the report of second surveyor, Insurance Company by letter dated 18.7.97 repudiated the claim of the complainant. All this action of the Insurance company was during the pendency of the complaint before the National Commission.
3. By order dated 27.4.2001 we observed that since the pleadings are complete evidence may be led by means of affidavit. We gave opportunity to the parties to file their affidavits within eight weeks. While the complainant failed to file any affidavit, affidavit that filed by the Insurance Company could not be termed as an evidence by way of affidavit. We, therefore, gave another opportunity to the parties to file their affidavits. Complainant filed detailed affidavit with documents in support of its case. The affidavit filed by the Insurance Company in support of its case was that of Mr. Inder Chadha, of Inder Chadha & Associates. It is a one paragraph affidavit which reads as under:
"That the respondent had appointed us the surveyors to assess the loss in the above case and accordingly we assessed the loss as per our report dated 14.02.1996 which may be read as part and parcel of the affidavit the contents of which are not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. While assessing the loss we have kept in mind the policy conditions and the report of Shri D.K. Bohra and have taken the net assessed loss worked out in his report dated 1.7.1994 as Rs. 21,34,135/-. The loss after application of the under insurance and policy excess comes to nil and no liability of the respondent company arises."
4. We have been unable to find any explanation as to why it took more than six years for the Insurance Company to repudiate the claim. No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming. It in itself is gross deficiency in service on the part of any Insurance Company. Various letters written by the complainant were not responded by the Insurance Company. Then no explanation is forthcoming as to why Insurance Company thought it necessary to appoint second surveyor and why the report of the first surveyor Mr. D.K. Borah was not accepted. In our judgment dated 8.2.2002 in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. New Patiala Trading Company (Revision Petition No. 488/98) we have already held that second surveyor cannot be appointed as a matter of course and we find in the circumstances Insurance Company could not refuse to act on the report of the first surveyor Mr. Borah. Mr. P.H. Parekh, learned counsel for the complainant says that he will accept the report of the first surveyor and compensation may be awarded in terms thereof along with 18% interest per annum. We are of the opinion that complainant is certainly entitled for interest for having been deprived of its claim all this period. We are of the view in the circumstances interest @ 17.5% per annum from 1.4.92 will meet the ends of justice.
5. We according direct that the Insurance Company will pay Rs. 18,35,938/- with interest @ 17.5% from 1.4.92 till payment, to the complainant. Complainant will also be entitled to cost which we assess at Rs. 10,000/-.