National Consumer Disputes Redressal
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs Sh. Mohan Lal & Ors. on 16 January, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3061 OF 2014 (From the order dated 10.04.2014 in Appeal No. 1454 of 2012 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur) 1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 88, Janpath, New Delhi 2. Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Bajaria, Kota, Through Regional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Regional Office, Kota Petitioners Versus 1. Sh. Mohan Lal S/o Habu Lal R/o Narayanpur Tehsil, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) 2. Executive Engineer, Jaipur Discom District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) 3. Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Electricity Power Supply Corporation Ltd Bonli District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B. C. GUPTA, MEMBER For Petitioner : Mr. Manish Pratap Singh, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : NEMO For Respondent No. 2&3 : Mr. Jasvinder Singh, Advocate DATED: 16.01.2015 JUDGMENT
JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The complainant/respondent obtained an Erection All Risks Insurance Policy from the petitioner, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. for an insured amount of Rs. 18 lakhs. The aforesaid policy was taken on account of the complainant having been awarded a contract of providing 11 KV Feeder line from Bonli to Peepalda. Two thefts took place during subsistence of the insurance policy, one on 29.10.2007 and the other on 04.11.2007 and material such as cable, pole etc. were stolen. The matter having been reported to the Insurance Company, two surveyors were appointed to assess the loss sustained by the complainant. One of the surveyor, Mr. Amit Kumar Shrivastava, vide his report dated 18.02.2008, assessed the loss to the complainant at Rs. 3,22,516.16/-. He, however, found that the equipment feeder line etc. had been underinsured to the extent of 44.26% and accordingly, made a deduction of Rs. 1,42,745.65/- on account of the said under insurance. After deducting a sum of Rs. 15,000/- under the heading excess clause, he recommended payment of Rs. 1,64,770.51/-. The second surveyor, Sh. B.B. Rai, vide his report dated 16.05.2008, assessed the loss to the complainant at Rs. 4,01,212.37/- after adding 35% over head charges. After making deduction on account of under valuation, he assessed the loss at Rs. 2,39,159/-. He made further deduction of Rs. 2,400/- on account of value recoverable by salvage and deduction of Rs. 15,000/- on account of policy excess and recommended payment of Rs. 2,21,759/- to the complainant.
2. Being aggrieved from the denial of a substantial part of the claim, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint, seeking the following reliefs:-
1. On the basis of this the complainant by of alleging the opponent insurance company for lack of service requested to allow the complaint and asked to recover from opponent no. 1 to 3 remaining amount of Rs. 3,91,162/-
out of Rs. 6,82,240/- cost of the material stolen along with interest.
2. That an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony be awarded from the opponent.
3. That along with interest the original amount deposited by the complainant with the opponent from it deducting the amount deposited by the insurance company.
4. That Rs.
20,000/- towards costs of the complaint be also awarded.
3. The complaint was opposed by the Insurance Company, primarily on the ground that the equipment etc. having been got underinsured by the complainant, the deductions made by the surveyor was justified. It was also stated in the reply that the complainant having accepted the amount assessed by the surveyor in full and final settlement of their claim, he is precluded from filing a complaint seeking additional payment.
4. The Insurance Policy, to the extent it is relevant for the purpose of this petition reads as under:-
It is a requirement of this insurance that the sum of insurance stated in the schedule shall not be less than the completely erected value of the property inclusive of freights, customs duty, erection cost and the insured undertakes to increase or decrease the amount of insurance in the event of any material fluctuation in the level of wages or prices. Provided always that such increase or decrease shall take effect only after the same has been recorded on the policy by the company.
If, in the event of the occurrence of a loss, or damage it is found that the sum insured representing the completely erected value of the property and/or of particular items involved is less than the amount required to be insured the amount recoverable by the insured under the policy shall be reduced in such proportion as the sum insured bears to the amount required to be insured.
5. It would thus be seen that the complainant was required to obtain insurance in respect of the entire erected value of the project inclusive of freight, customs duty, erection costs etc. and in the event of insurance for a lesser amount being obtained by him, he is entitled for reimbursement of the loss only on proportionate basis.
6. In the case before us, the surveyor found on verification that the value of the equipment was much more than the amount for which the insurance policy was obtained by the complainant. Therefore, he was absolutely justified in resorting to the aforesaid clause and recommending the claim on a proportionate basis. To this extent, the decision taken by the Insurance Company cannot be faulted with.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- each has been deducted by the surveyor in both the reports, without any justification for such deductions. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company, however, submits that this was done as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.
We find, from a perusal of the discharge voucher available at page no. 99 of the paper book, that the complainant accepted one claim of Rs. 1,65,375/- and the other of Rs. 1,25,703/- in full and final settlement of its claim. The discharge voucher, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:-
In consideration of approval of my/our claim I/We hereby accept from the Oriental Insurance Company Limited the sum of Rs. 1,65,375/-, Rupees One Lac Sixty Five Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Five only, Rs. 1,25,703/-, Rupees One Lac Twenty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Three only (approved net claim amount) in Full and Final Settlement of My/our claim for the loss of _________ (Property) which occurred on __________ (date of loss) covered under Policy No. _________ for the period from ____________ to ____________.
Motordeptt.: Vehicle No. ___________Make ____________ Fire Deptt.: Details of Property: Misc. Deptt. ______ Marine: AWB/RR/BL/No.________Dated______Vessel_____ I/We hereby voluntarily give discharge receipt to the Company in Full & Final Settlement of all my/our claims present or future arising directly/indirectly in respect of the said loss/accident.
I/We hereby also subrogate all my/our rights and remedies to the Company in respect of the above loss/damages.
The learned counsel for the complainant points out that there are a number of blanks in the aforesaid document. The aforesaid blanks in our opinion are not material and in fact some of them do not even apply to the case before us.
What is material is that the complainant accepted two payments, one of Rs. 1,65,375/- and the other of Rs. 1,25,703/- in full and final settlement of its claim and gave a discharge to the Insurance Company in respect of the loss sustained by him. Having accepted the aforesaid amount in full and final settlement of its claim, the complainant is now precluded from claiming any further amount from the Insurance Company since the aforesaid acceptance constitutes a valid agreement between the parties as regards the claim which the complainant had lodged with the Insurance Company.
8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order passed by the Fora below are hereby set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
V.K.JAIN, J PRESIDING MEMBER .
DR. B.C. GUPTA MEMBER PSM/11