State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Anjali Arts vs The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. on 14 December, 2020
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2020
Date of institution : 06.02.2020
Date of reserve : 04.12.2020
Date of decision : 14.12.2020
M/s. Anjali Arts, Plot No.244, JLPL, Sector 82, S.A.S. Nagar, through
its proprietor namely Sh. Ravinder Kumar.
.....Complainant
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 109-111, Sector 17-D,
Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager/Authorized Person/
Managing Director.
E-mail id:[email protected]
.....Opposite Party
Consumer Complaint under Section 17 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Argued by:-
For the complainant : Sh. Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate For the opposite party : Sh. J.P. Nahar, Advocate JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT :
The instant complaint has been preferred by the proprietorship firm known as "M/s Anjali Arts", through its proprietor Sh. Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2020 2 Ravinder Kumar under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act"), against the opposite party (in short 'OP'), seeking following directions to it:
(i) OP be directed to pay Rs.44,70,858.54 paise along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of loss i.e. 07.04.2019;
(ii) to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant for mental harassment, physical harassment and monetary loss; and
(iii) to pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-.
Facts of the Complaint
2. The complainant-firm is engaged in manufacturing of printed Mono Cartons, Boxes and Books, etc. exclusively for the purpose of earning livelihood with the help of few labourers. The registration certificate dated 20.09.2017 of the complainant-firm is Ex.C-1. To safeguard its interest, complainant-firm had obtained insurance policy i.e. "Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy" from OP for the period commencing from 08.02.2019 to 07.02.2020 for the sum insured of Rs.2,06,00,000/-, under which the plant and machinery was insured and Rs.1,60,00,000/-, under which the stock stored in printing press was insured. It paid the premium amount of Rs.36,169/- and OP issued cover note dated 07.02.2019, which is Ex.C-2 on the record. It is the specific case of the complainant-firm that OP never supplied the terms and conditions applicable to the policy to it and only cover note, Ex.C-2, was supplied. Unfortunately, on 07.04.2019 at around 12:30 P.M., fire took place at the insured premises. Initially, the fire was Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2020 3 noticed by Machineman, who tried to extinguish the fire with fire extinguisher and thereafter the fire brigade was also called, which reached the premises and finally the fire was controlled at 3:30 PM on the same day. Thereafter, it was found that all four printing machines installed in the insured premises were directly affected and damaged by the fire heat, smoke and water. Even the stock under the process of manufacturing was also badly damaged due to the water and fire. Resultantly, the complainant suffered huge loss and damage to the machines and the stock lying at the insured premises. It is further averred that on inspection it transpired that fire had started due to short-circuiting and sparking in CPU Colour Machine and it quickly spread over to the other machines through paper and ink. On the same day i.e. on 07.04.2019, the DDR of the above incident of fire was reported to the Police Station Sohana, District S.A.S. Nagar, vide Ex.C-3 and the office of the Fire Brigade, S.A.S. Nagar also issued a certificate dated 09.04.2019 regarding the incident of fire, which occurred on 07.04.2019, vide Ex.C-4. The proprietor of the complainant-firm submitted the insurance claim dated 08.04.2019 with the OP alongwith all the relevant documents for processing the genuine claim, vide Ex.C-5. It is further averred that OP engaged Protech Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors for assessing the loss and claim of the complainant under the insurance policy in question. The Surveyor sought various documents from time to time from the complainant-firm, which were duly supplied to the Surveyor. The Surveyor also visited the insured premises and verified the Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2020 4 damage. The Surveyor instructed the proprietor of complainant-firm to proceed with the repair and reinstatement of the damaged machines. Accordingly, the Surveyor made the final visit to the insured premises on 21.06.2019 to verify the reinstatement of the machines and also to verify the claim of the complainant-firm under the insurance policy. Even the additional documents, as per demand of the Surveyor, were also supplied without any delay by the complainant-firm. The Surveyor after assessing the loss and damage suffered by the complainant-firm due to above fire incident, had submitted his survey report dated 13.09.2019, Ex.C-6, which was to the effect that the loss suffered by the insured appeared to be reasonable and there were sufficient supporting evidence to substantiate the same. The Surveyor even stated that the extent and nature of the damages noticed by him also support the contention of the complainant-firm and that he did not find anything suspicious or contrary in the statement of the insured. The Surveyor also mentioned in his report that the claim of the complainant-firm is admissible and that it had suffered loss to the machinery and building attributable to fire under the policy in question. It was also specifically mentioned in the survey report that "the loss of the insured does not fall under any of the policy exclusions and conditions and payable under the SFSP policy and the insurers are liable to pay for the same." But against the claim bill of Rs.49,28,000/-, the repair charges of the damaged machinery and Rs.5,33,319/- towards the damaged stock, the Surveyor assessed only Rs.9,90,460.96 paise as net liability of the OP payable to the Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2020 5 complainant-firm, vide survey report, Ex.C-6. It is alleged that the survey report dated 13.09.2019, Ex.C-6 is arbitrary and whimsical deductions have been made to the extent of 75% without any valid reasons. The Surveyor has failed to appreciate the material facts that towards the repair bills no depreciation could have been deducted, since it is not a case of fresh purchase of machinery. It is further averred that Surveyor at his excluded the claim of CPC4 Colour Printing Machine on the pretext that loss of the said machine falls under the alleged exclusions clause and OP is not liable to pay for the same. Whereas, the complainant-firm or its proprietor has not received copy of the terms and conditions applicable to the policy in question nor any exclusion clause has been mentioned on the cover note supplied to it nor brought to the notice of the complainant-firm. Feeling aggrieved against the wrong assessment made by the Surveyor, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant-firm, claiming relief as stated above.
Defence of the opposite party
3. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed its written version by raising preliminary objections that complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the property insured has been hypothecated to the UCO Bank, Sector-8, Panchkula. Previously, the claim was paid to the Bank, but now the Bank has not been made a party, thus, the complaint is defective due to non-joinder of the necessary parties and is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is averred that Ex.C-2 is not a cover note, but an insurance policy namely "The Standard Fire and Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2020 6 Special Perils Policy", which was valid from 08.02.2019 to 07.02.2020, under which the plant and machinery was insured for Rs.2,06,00,000/- and the stock was insured for Rs.1,60,00,000/- and the policy bearing No.231100/11/2019/194, Ex.OP-1, is subject to the various clauses, terms and conditions. The terms and conditions were supplied and explained to the complainant. As a matter of fact, previously the complainant was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office-1, SCO No.40, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh for the period from 08.02.2018 to 07.02.2019 and it requested DO-1, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, vide its letter dated 06.02.2019, Ex.OP-2, to renew the policy and a copy of the insurance policy of United India Insurance Company Limited was provided. The complainant had started its business in the year 2002 and has been taking the fire insurance policies from various insurance companies, but now has been making an attempt to wriggle out of the terms and conditions of the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy. It is admitted that the fire has occurred on 07.04.2019 due to short circuiting and there was a loss to the machines and stocks. It is denied that the loss was huge, as projected by the complainant. Annexure Ex.C-3, Ex.C-4 and C-5 have been stated to be a matter of record. It is admitted that OP deputed M/s Protech Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors to assess the loss and the documents were supplied to the Surveyor on piece meal basis. It is also admitted that the insured premises was visited by the Surveyor on 21.06.2019. The contents of para No.8 of the complaint are admitted to the extent that the Surveyor submitted his report dated Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2020 7 13.09.2019 and found the loss genuine and admissible and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.9,90,460.96 paise and also gave detailed calculations for the loss assessed, vide survey report dated 13.09.2019, Ex.OP-4. It is denied that the survey report is arbitrary and whimsical deductions have been made. It is also denied that Surveyor has deducted 75% from the replacement value of the plant and machinery, without any valid reasoning. It is further averred that the complainant had started its business in the year 2002 after purchasing second hand machines and thereafter also most of the machines purchased were old and some machines were new. The complainant wanted to allow the new item against the old/used item, which is against the principle of indemnity. The machines were second hand and refurbished and the year of purchase ranges from 2002 to 2016, as per statement of complainant dated 08.04.2019, Ex.OP-5. The Surveyor considered the claim bill dated 25.06.2019 for Rs.49,28,000/- for plant and machinery and the gross loss has been arrived at Rs.43,03,000/-, as per Annexure-A, Ex.OP-7, of the survey report. Out of the amount of Rs.43,03,000/-, the Surveyor deducted an amount of Rs.12,50,000/- towards the cost of repair of CPC-4 from where the fire originated and the same was not payable, as per Exclusion No.7 of the policy. The Surveyor further reduced 5% amount i.e. Rs.1,52,650/- out of Rs.30,53,000/- on account of variance towards rates and allowed the amount to the tune of Rs.29,00,350/-. The Surveyor mentioned that "The insured has provided claim bill along with copies of the purchase bills. It is not possible to verify the rates claimed by the insured and to Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2020 8 offset any variation in the rates of the machines, we have deducted a possible variance @5% towards the rates of the claimed items." Rs.21,75,262/-, being 75%, has been deducted as margin for refurbishment from the amount of Rs.29,00,350/- and the net amount assessed to Rs.7,25,087.50 paise by the Surveyor by mentioning that "the machines are refurbished ones. The refurbished machines are generally purchased at 1/4th to 1/5th of its new replacement value. As all these machines are repaired by using new parts, which are deducted by a margin of 75% to equate it to the refurbished cost of the machine. A margin @75% is therefore deducted." The Surveyor also deducted an amount of Rs.2500/- on account of salvage of the damaged parts, out of Rs.7,25,087.50 paise. The machines were quite old and the cost of new machines could not be allowed for the old machines to maintain the principle of indemnity. As per the principle of indemnity, the claimant has to be placed in the same position, as he was before the loss, neither the better nor the worse. It is specifically denied that the survey report is arbitrary, rather the report is based on the true facts. The amount of removal of debris from the premises was not claimed in the claim bill, but Surveyor being fair allowed the amount of Rs.10,322.58 paise, as the complainant was entitled to that, as per Clause 8 of the General Exclusions and the relevant provision of the policy. Majority of the paragraphs, where the reference to the amount spent by the complainant has been denied and it is stated in the end that the assessment made by the Surveyor is legal and valid and the complainant is not entitled to the full claim. It is alleged that Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2020 9 loss occurred on 07.04.2019 and after submission of bills/invoices by the complainant, Surveyor submitted his report on 13.09.2019 and admissible amount was paid to it on 25.09.2019 and no more amount is payable towards the claim. Denying any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part, OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs.
4. The complainant has also filed rejoinder to the written statement of the OP by denying the facts of the reply and reiterating the facts of the complaint.
Evidence of the Parties
5. To prove its claim, the complainant along with complaint produced affidavit of Ravinder Kumar, Proprietor and documents i.e. copy of registration certificate dated 20.09.2017 Ex.C-1, copy of cover note dated 07.02.2017 Ex.C-2, copy of DDR dated 07.04.2019 Ex.C-3, copy of Fire Brigade Report dated 09.04.2019 Ex.C-4, copy of claim form dated 08.04.2019 Ex.C-5, copy of surveyor report dated 13.09.2019 Ex.C-6, copy of bills Ex.C-7 (colly), copy of representation Ex.C-8, copy of letter dated 27.11.2019 Ex.C-9 and copy of bank statement Ex.C-10.
6. The OP along with written reply placed on record self attested affidavit of Gurupdesh Kaur, Manager and power of attorney holder and documents i.e. copy of Insurance Policy and terms and conditions Ex.OP-1, copy of letter dated 06.02.2019 and insurance policy Ex.OP-2, copy of insurance policy as tariff Ex.OP-3, copy of survey report dated 13.09.2019 Ex.OP-4, copy of statement dated Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2020 10 08.04.2019 Ex.OP-5, copy of claim bill dated 25.06.2019 Ex.OP-6, copy of annexure-A of the survey report Ex.OP-7, copy of claim form dated 08.04.2019 Ex.OP-9 and self attested affidavit of Pukhraj Singh Surveyor Ex.OP-9.
Contentions of the parties
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through written arguments and the record carefully.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant argued on the same lines as have been averred in the complaint. Learned counsel also contended that Ex.C-2, Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy Schdule, does not contain any conditions or refer to any exclusion clauses and it is a cover note. The complainant-firm was earlier insured by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and the said policy was renewed by the present OP i.e. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., both are different. Every insurance policy is required to be supplied alongwith terms and conditions by the insurance company with whom the insured entered into a contract for insuring the premises. Learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) "Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha"
2015(1)CLT-590
(ii) "The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Manmohan Kaur, FA No.20 of 2019, decided on 29.07.2019 by this Commission.
(iii) "The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Satpal Singh & others" 2014(2)CLT-305.
(iv) "Modern Insulators Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited" 2000(2)SCC-734 Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2020 11
(v) "Bharat Watch Company, through its Partner Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd." 2019(6)SCC-212
(vi) "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Paresh Mohanlal Parmar" 2020(1)RCR(Civil)1006 It is further contended that OP had deducted an amount of Rs.12,50,000/- towards the cost of repair of CPC-4 from where the fire originated and not payable as per exclusion clause No.7 without any justification. It is contended that if the exclusion clause is not explained the same is not binding and learned counsel for complainant relied upon the following judgments:
"National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. D.P. Jain" 2007(3)CPJ-34 The OP arbitrarily deducted an amount of Rs.1,52,650/- i.e. 5% variance towards the rates for which proper claim bill along with copies of the purchase bill were supplied by the complainant. The OP has allowed only Rs.7,39,250/- on account of repairs and service charges of the machinery instead of Rs.21,82,600/-. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, learned counsel for complainant prayed for acceptance of the complaint.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company also argued on the lines of his written arguments and further contended that the complaint is defective due to non-joinder of necessary parties, as previously the claim amount was paid to the UCO Bank, because the insured property is under hypothecation of it, but the Bank has not been impleaded as a party by the complainant- firm. Learned counsel further contended that the complainant-firm has annexed the insurance policy as Ex.C-2 (page 27-29) and at page 29, Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2020 12 it has been clearly mentioned that "The insurance under this policy is subject to conditions, clauses, warranties, endorsements, as per forms attached." The complete policy with terms and conditions was supplied to the complainant otherwise the complainant would have certainly asked for the same. It is further contended that the complainant had been taking insurance policy from various insurance companies, which had supplied the terms and conditions, which uniformly applicable to all the Insurance Companies. The Surveyor rightly disallowed the loss to CPC-4 under the heading cause of loss and also given the reasons. The fire originated due to electric short-circuit in the control panel of CPC-4 colour printing machine and the same is not admissible under exclusion clause 7 of the policy. The assessment of the loss is legal and valid based on the true facts. Most of the machines installed in the insured premises were old/second hand and refurbished and complainant claimed the amount of new parts of the machines, which is not admissible. The Surveyor has given full justification in his survey report while assessing loss for plant and machinery. The Surveyor has not deducted any further depreciation as 75% has been deducted from the replacement value to arrive at its market value. The Surveyor deducted a possible variance @5% towards the rates of claimed items, as it is not possible to verify the rate claimed by the insured. The amount of Rs.2500/- was deducted towards salvage of the damaged parts by the Surveyor out of Rs.7,25,087.50 paise, the net amount of loss. The Surveyor had allowed the amount of Rs.10,322.68 towards removal of debris, which was not claimed by the complainant. The Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2020 13 complainant has failed to rebut the survey report of the IRDA licensed surveyor by placing on record any cogent evidence. The complainant has not submitted any other survey report to rebut the survey report submitted by the OP. Learned counsel for the OP relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission titled as "D.N. Badoni Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd." 1(2012)CPJ-272(NC). Learned counsel for the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Consideration of Contentions
10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record as well as their written arguments.
11. It is an admitted fact of the parties that the complainant-firm had taken Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy, Ex.C-2, for the period from 08.02.2019 to 07.02.2020 from OP and the plant and machinery insured for a sum of Rs.2,06,00,000/- and the stock stored in the printing press was insured for a sum of Rs.1,60,00,000/-. It paid a premium of Rs.36,169/- for above said insurance policy to the OP. It is also an admitted fact that the fire took place on 07.04.2019 at the firm's premises and Fire Brigade reached at the spot and had extinguished the fire and a certificate dated 09.04.2019, Ex.C-4, in this regard was also issued by the Fire Brigade. DDR, Ex.C-3, was also recorded at Police Station Sohana, SAS Nagar on 07.04.2019. The only question which needs to be considered is with regard to the assessment of loss and the deductions made by the Surveyor. Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2020 14
12. Firstly, we would like to deal with the contention of the complainant-firm with regard to non-supply of terms and conditions of the policy. The OP had taken a stand in its reply in para No.3 that "the complainant is referring to the cover note which is actually an insurance policy and the terms and conditions were supplied and explained to the complainant. As a matter of fact, previously the complainant was insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office-1, SCO No.40, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh for the period 08.02.2018 to 07.02.2019 and the complainant requested DO-1, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, vide its letter dated 06.02.2019, Ex.OP-2, to renew the policy and a copy of the insurance policy of United India Insurance Company Ltd. was provided. The complainant had started its business in 2002 and has been taking the fire insurance policies from various Insurance Companies, but now is making an attempt to wriggle out of the terms and conditions of the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy. Otherwise also, the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy has been formulated by the Tariff Advisory Committee, which is a statutory body under the Insurance Act, 1938 and all Insurance Companies, whether Public Sector or Private Sector, has to follow the same terms and conditions while issuing the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy. A copy of the insurance policy, as per All India Fire Tariff is annexed as Ex.OP-3." Perusal of the record shows that there is no document placed on record by the OP to prove its version that terms and conditions were supplied and explained to the complainant-firm. In the absence of any document with regard to Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2020 15 explaining the terms and conditions of the policy and supply thereof to the complainant-firm, we are unable to rely upon the version of the OP that terms and conditions of the policy in question were supplied to the complainant-firm and duly explained the same to it. Moreover, the stand of OP is that terms and conditions of all the Insurance Companies are the same, as the same have been formulated by the Tariff Advisory Committee. It is pertinent to mention that complainant- firm first time had taken the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy from OP i.e. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, and it was the bounden duty of the OP to supply the terms and conditions of the policy to the complainant. We have perused the insurance policy, Ex.C-2, and there are no terms and conditions written on it. In view of this, it is clear that no terms and conditions have been supplied by OP to the complainant-firm, hence exclusion clauses will not apply on the complainant-firm. The Hon'ble National Commission has held in D.P. Jain's case (supra) that if Exclusion Clauses are not explained, these are not binding on the insured. The Haryana State Commission while relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd.'s case (supra) held that "it is the duty of the insurance company to prove that the terms and conditions were explained to the insured when cover note was issued. When the OPs miserably failed to prove that terms and conditions were explained to consumers, they cannot derive any benefit of exclusion clauses." The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Modern Insulators Limited's case (supra) held that "the clauses which are not Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2020 16 explained to the complainant/insured are not binding upon him and the same are required to be ignored."
13. So far as the contention of the OP with regard to non- joinder of necessary parties is concerned, it is pertinent to mention that complainant-firm purchased the policy from OP by paying the requisite premium and also lodged the claim with OP. The OP is liable to pay the claim and there is no role of UCO Bank in this case in processing the claim and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the UCO Bank as well. So, we are of the opinion that UCO bank is not a necessary party and the complaint is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. As such, we reject the contention of OP with regard to non-joinder of necessary parties in the case.
14. Now, we deal with point of claim towards the damage caused to the plant and machines. As per the fire insurance claim form, Ex.C-5, the complainant-firm claimed total estimated loss towards plant & machinery and stock to the tune of Rs.1.95 crore. As per the survey report dated 13.09.2019, Ex.C-6, the complainant-firm claimed bill of Rs.49,28,000/- towards repair charges of the damaged machinery (Annexuer-6) and the Surveyor had assessed the gross loss as Rs.43,03,000/-, as per Annexure-A. The complainant-firm claimed the amount of Rs.5,33,319.50 paise towards damaged stock (Annexure-6), but against this claimed amount only Rs.3,76,464.74 paise was assessed by the Surveyor. An amount of Rs.1,33,150/- was claimed by complainant-firm towards repair of building and painting and cleaning charges, wiring repair, AC repair and electrical lights, but Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2020 17 the Surveyor denied the same by stating that building is not covered in the policy. The deductions on the replacement value of the plant and machinery was made by the Surveyor to the extent of 75%, which apparently appears to be excessive. No reasons have been given, no reference was made to the machines bills when these were originally purchased. Even no attempt has been made to direct the complainant- firm to place on record the income tax returns and balance sheets on the basis of which depreciated value of the machines can be appreciated. In our opinion, 75% deduction towards the charges of repair of plant and machinery is without any justification. The Surveyor and OP have failed to show any instructions how the deductions are to be made. Similarly, 5% deduction has been made as a variance towards stocks rates. In this manner, it appears that the assessment has been made by the Surveyor on the guess work manner without citing any principle and relevant instructions. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the claim needs to be re-assessed in accordance with the principle of indemnity and the instructions issued by the IRDA from time to time. The Surveyor can direct the complainant-firm to place on record the income tax returns and balance sheets, as it is income tax payee firm and purchase bills to determine the depreciated value of those machines from time to time. Surveyor may also call for other relevant documents to determine actual price of the machines, which can be claimed by the complainant not simply deducting 75% from the repair charges and price of the replaced parts of the plant and machinery, which apparently appears to Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2020 18 be unjustified. Similarly, 5% deduction has been made towards the rates of stocks without verifying the value of the stock and the prevailing rates at that point of time in the market.
15. As per our above discussions, we are of the view that the loss assessed by the Surveyor is not in accordance with law and it apparently needs to be re-assessed and detailed reasons should be given and reference be also made to the income tax and sale tax return and original purchase invoices of the plant and machinery, etc. to determine their price. So far as the stock rates are concerned, they should also be verified from the record of the complainant-firm as well as from the market.
16. In view of this, the complaint is partly allowed and a direction is issued to OP to get re-assess the claim from the Surveyor and the complainant-firm is also directed to supply the relevant documents at the earliest possible preferable within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order to OP and the Surveyor and on receipt of such documents, the Surveyor will re-assess the loss within one month and submit his detailed report. On receipt of Survey report, the OP will pay the remaining claim amount to the complainant- firm within 15 days. In the meanwhile, the OP is also directed to pay the amount of loss assessed by the Surveyor, vide Ex.C-6, to the complainant-firm along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of survey report i.e. 13.09.2019 till its realization (minus the amount, if any already paid by OP), because the survey report is required to be submitted by the Surveyor within 90 days from the date of his Consumer Complaint No.56 of 2020 19 appointment, in case of claims are made in respect of commercial and large risks, as per the guidelines. In this case, the Surveyor was appointed on 08.04.2019, as per Ex.OP-4, the survey report, and the survey report was required to be submitted by the Surveyor on or before 08.07.2019. But the Surveyor has taken the excess time and submitted his report dated 13.09.2019 with OP i.e. after more than two months period. If the complainant-firm still feel aggrieved after the re- assessment of the claim made by the Surveyor, it will be at liberty to avail the remedy in accordance with law.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER December 14, 2020.
(MM)