State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Devinder Malhotra vs Unites India Insurance Co. Ltd on 1 November, 2010
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 01.11.2010 Complaint No. C-9/01 Sri Devinder Malhotra Complainant Prop. M/s Shri Balaji Industries, 112, Gagan Vihar Extn., New Delhi. Versus 1. Unites India Insurance Co. Ltd. Opposite Party No.1 Through Its Branch Manager, 24/15, Bharat Ram Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. 2. Canara Bank Opposite Party No.2 Party No.2 Through Its Branch Manager, Chandni Chowk Branch, 242, Kaisons House, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. CORAM: Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi President Ms. Salma Noor Member
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral) The facts of the case are that;
the complainant is engaged in printing of packing material and for his clients purchases the raw material, and does the printing job with the help of collateral material using several chemicals, dye etc. He carries the printing business under the name and style of M/s. Balaji Industries, and his unit is situated at 325, Patpar Ganj Industrial Area, Delhi. The complainant has cash credit facilities from OP-2 Canara Bank of Rs. 15 lac against the stocks.
2. The complainant obtained an Insurance Fire and Special Perils Policy valid from 4.5.06 to 3.5.07 for a sum of Rs. 25 lac, covering the risk of stock of Ink Rollars(cylinders), Polyster Film, Rollars(Pressure Rubber), LDC Films etc. related to insured trade, a copy of which is available on the record. 3. The complainants case is that on 28.9.06, the man of OP-2 Bank had been to the premises of the complainant, and on physical verification of the stock assessed its value of an amount of more than Rs. 25 lac. That on 30.9.06 at about 9.00 p.m., a fire broke out in the premises of the unit of the complainant, and everything kept in the godown including the material stock and official records were burnt resulting in loss of more than Rs. 20 lacs. The incident was reported to the Fire Department, and also the Police.
4. The complainant lodged a claim through OP-2 Bank where his property is mortgaged to OP-1 Insurance Company, also mentioning therein the details of the materials, also annexing their list affected by the fire, covered under the policy, which according to him amounted to Rs. 22.13 lac.
5. The OP Insurance Company deputed one M/s. S. Soni & Co. to survey and assess the loss, who vide letter dated 18.10.2006(copy of which is on the file) asked the complainant to furnish the following 16 documents for their survey;
i) Claim from duly filled up with statement of loss in the following format;
S.No. Name of item Qty.
Rate Amount Bill Reference
ii) Copy of FIR & Fire Report.
iii) Copy of audited balance sheets with 3 CD form for 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06.
iv) Trading A/c from 01.04.06 till 30.09.06 and Ledger A/c relating to Trading A/c & major parties.
v) Stock Register copy 2005-06 & 2006-07.
vi) VAT Returns for 01.04.06 to 30.09.06.
vii) Purchase & Sale Bills from 01.04.06 to 30.09.06.
viii) Newspaper cutting.
ix) You are requested to segregate item on the affected stocks and make a list item was quality-wise and call us for quantification and valuation.
x) Brief history of company.
xi) Income Tax Returns for last year.
xii) Rent Agreement copy and receipt.
xiii) Bank Stock Statement for last one year.
xiv) Bank Pass Book/Statement from 01.04.06 to 30.09.06.
xv) Salvage Value Offer.
xvi) Challan copies from 01.04.06 to 30.09.06.
Out of the aforementioned documents, the complainant did not furnish documents given at Sl. No. 4,5,6,7,10,13(barring the period from 1.3.6 to 30.9.6), 16, and also could not segregate item, as was required vide Sl. No. 9 of the Letter of the surveyor, saying, that his records of the sto ck were burnt in the fire.
6. The surveyor vide his report dated 3.4.07, assessed the loss of an amount of Rs. 4,51,88.75 after physical quantification and valuation based on purchase bills and market price of the goods perished in fire. The OP company offered the complainant 4,50,344/- towards the final settlement of his claim which were not acceptable to him, and he therefore filed a complaint of the aforementioned facts before the State Commission, which vide order dated 24.10.2007 on basis of the pecuniary jurisdiction at the preliminary stage of admission sent it to the District Forum observing that in case the Forum arrives on the conclusion that the complainant is entitled for higher compensation, the Forum may remit it to this Commission for final adjudication, also directing the complainant to accept the amount offered by the OP, which the complainant accepted, without prejudice to his rights. This order was set aside by the National Commission, which remanded the case to this Commission to decide the complaint according to law.
7. The complainants case is that the surveyor demanded the documents with mal-intention as to deny the claim of the complainant, the OP Insurance Company is deficient of service for not finalizing his claim for a long period and estimating his loss at a very lower side intentionally. His prayer is that the OP-1 be directed to pay him Rs. 22.13 lac more towards the insurance claim, Rs. 2 lac towards the interest charged by the bank during this period from the complainant, Rs. 2 lac towards the loss in business, and Rs. 5 lac towards mental agony and harassment.
8. The OP opposed the claim and filed the written statement supported with an affidavit alleging that the verification report of the bank pertains to a premises situated at 112, Gagan Vihar Extn., while the complainants business where he keeps his stock, which is insured with OP, is at 325, Patparganj Industrial Area. The complainant did not produce the relevant documents despite many reminders regarding the extent of stock before the surveyor to establish his claim, and the OP had settled the claim according to the assessment made by the surveyor. Nothing has been said by the complainant to suggest as to how and why the report of the surveyor is erroneous.
9. The complainant filed his affidavit and some documents, while the OP has filed the surveyors report in the evidence.
10. We have heard Shri Umesh Sharma, Counsel for the complainant and Shri Udit Kumar Chaturvedi, proxy to Shri A.K. Dey, counsel for the OP Insurance Company.
11. The question to be resolved in this complaint is whether the complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 22.13 lacs, as claimed by him or a loss of Rs. 4,50,344/-, as alleged by the OP insurance company?
12. It will be noticed that the surveyor of the insurance company assessed the loss at Rs. 4,51,088.75, which was duly paid to the complainant. The surveyor demanded 16 documents from the complainant to ascertain the claim of his loss, while the OP supplied only nine of them detailed in para No. 5 herein above, and the complainant said that all these remaining documents had been burnt in the fire. His case is that the surveyor had demanded them only to delay and deny his claim. We are inclined to disagree with the contention of the complainant, because he could have obtained some of these documents, and could and should have filed the same, but he did not. The complainant as such did not provide the proper proof of his loss to the OP insurance company. He also did not engage any independent surveyor to assess the damage caused by the fire, which could have supported his claim.
13. Besides, a perusal of the copy of the claim form and the list of the material filed by the complainant will reveal, that it does not contain the numbers of the roller(cylinder), polyester(films) LDCC films perished in the fire. The list of material at its serial No.1 mentions 71 bags, but does not reveal which material did they contain. In the list of material he has given the value of the perished items, but has not filed any evidence, to substantiate the value.
14. The complainant has alleged that two days before the fire, the bank authorities of OP-2 Canara Bank with whom the stock was hypothecated inspected the premises, and verified that the value of the stock lying there, was of the value of more than Rs. 25 lacs, but no assessment report of the bank has been filed, nor any such report was summoned from the bank. As such, it is not possible to accept the contention of the bank that the bank has assessed the property in question of Rs. 25 lacs.
15. It has to be mentioned that it was for the complainant to have established by proper evidence the extent of loss suffered by him in the fire. In the absence of any credible evidence about the same, the report of the surveyor should become acceptable, and as such claim of the complainant is liable to dismissal.
16. Complaint dismissed. Costs made easy in the circumstances of the case.
17. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.
18. Announced on 1st day of November, 2010.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (Salma Noor) Member ysc