National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Khadi Udyog Jathlana vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 26 May, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1501 OF 2011 (Against the Order dated 04/01/2011 in Appeal No. 603/2006 of the State Commission Haryana) 1. KHADI UDYOG JATHLANA Through its Secretary Sh. Rajesh Singla, Village Manglai, Tehsil & District Ambala Haryana ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Through its Senior Divisional Manager, 170/2-5, Netaji Subhash Marg Ambala Cantt. Haryna ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Gurjinder Singh Chahal, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. S.L. Gupta, Advocate
Dated : 26 May 2016 ORDER
This revision petition has been filed, challenging the impugned order dated 04.01.2011, passed by the UT Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in FA No. 603/2006, "Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Khadi Udyog Jathlana", vide which, the order dated 19.01.2006, passed by the District Forum Ambala, allowing the Complaint No. 26/20.1.2005, filed by the present petitioner Khadi Udyog Jathlana was modified.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant Khadi Udyog Jathlana filed the consumer complaint in question, saying that they were a social welfare society, carrying on the activities of manufacturing khadi goods like Dari, tat, chaddar, quilts, mattresses etc. with a view to generate employment in the rural sector. Sh. Rajesh Singla, Secretary of the Society was authorised to file and pursue the said complaint. It was stated that the complainant had its factory at Village Manglai, Tehsil & District Ambala, where all the items were manufactured and the stocks of raw material was stored. The complainant had got the raw material, finished goods and machinery insured from the respondent Insurance Company for 01.08.2003 to 31.07.2004 under various policies, covering the risk of fire, theft, flood etc. It has been stated that a fire broke out in the factory on 05.03.2004 and continued for two days. The stock of raw-material was totally damaged in the fire. The complainant gave intimation to the insurance company, which appointed a surveyor to assess the loss. As per the respondent, the loss sustained by them was more than ₹15_lakh, but the OP Insurance Company offered a sum of ₹3,24,768/- as full and final settlement and forced them to accept the same. According to the complainant, they told the insurance company that they will accept the said amount under protest, but the respondent forced them to accept the same as full and final settlement. Thereafter, they wrote various letters to the insurance company, but their claim was not settled. The consumer complaint was filed seeking direction to the Insurance Company to pay the amount claimed by the complainant, alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the date of fire, till realisation.
3. The complaint was contested by the Insurance Company by filing a written statement before the District Forum in which they stated that the complainant had not supplied the required documents to the insurance company or the surveyor. The Insurance Company further stated that the complainant failed to submit the discharge voucher duly stamped and signed to enable the company to process the matter further.
4. The District Forum vide their order dated 19.01.2006, allowed the said complaint and directed the insurance company to pay a sum of ₹11,53,704/- alongwith 5% interest p.a. from the date of loss till realisation. Being aggrieved against the said order, the insurance company challenged the same by way of appeal before the State Commission, which was decided vide impugned order dated 04.01.2011, observing that the report submitted by the surveyor could not be discharged unless the contrary was proved by the other party. The State Commission also observed that the complainant had given signed certificate for full and final settlement as ₹3,24,768/-. The State Commission also observed that there was nothing on record to say that any protest was filed by the complainant. The State Commission, therefore, held that the complainant was entitled to the grant of ₹3,24,768/- only. Being aggrieved against the said order, the complainants are before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.
5. During hearing before me, the learned counsel for the complainant stated that they had not signed the said voucher for full and final settlement and also stated that the complainant was entitled to get the entire amount claimed by them. In reply, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent stated that the order passed by the State Commission was in accordance with law and should be upheld. The Ld. Counsel referred to an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "National Insurance Company Vs. Sehtia Shoes reported in [(2008) 5 SCC Page 400], in which it was held that once the discharge voucher is given without any fraud or coercion, the claimant could not challenge the quantum of amount given to him.
6. I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me. A perusal of the order made by the State Commission reveals that majority of bills of purchase by the complainant for the purpose of taking the claim were given by M/s Gandhi Udyog, which was situated in the same premises in which the complainants' concern was there. Moreover the said Gandhi Udyog was owned by Om Prakash Singla, who is father of Rajesh Singla who is Secretary of the complainant Society. It has also been observed that the books of accounts were not produced by Rajesh Singla before the surveyor. The surveyor also found that the goods of the two concerns were lying scattered in the same compound. The surveyor also observed that the bills of Singla Handloom, Gandhi Udyog and the complainant were under the handwriting of the same person and, therefore, reliance could not be placed on them. The surveyor also observed that Singla Handloom Manglai was owned by Smt. Lalita Singla who was the wife of Rajesh Singla, Secretary of the complainant. The purchase bills could, therefore, be easily arranged from Singla Handlooms but no payment was made to Singla Handloom, for the cotton purchase.
7. Based on the facts given in the report of the surveyor, the State Commission rightly observed that the firms Gandhi Udyog and Singla Handlooms were also the family concerns of the Secretary of the Society and that the record of the complainant and the other two concerns were in the same handwriting and hence, reliance could not be placed on them. The State Commission also observed that no satisfactory explanation was furnished by the complainant on the points raised by the surveyor in his report. It is an established legal proposition that the reports submitted by the surveyor has sanctity attached to it and it should be believed in normal course, unless there is sufficient material on record to say that such report was not based on genuine consideration of the facts involved. The Hon'ble Apex Court in their order in "Sri Venkateswara Syndicate Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr. [2009 8 SCC 507]", held as under:-
"Scheme of Section 64-UM, particularly of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) would show that the insurer cannot appoint a second surveyor just as a matter of course. If for any valid reason the report of the surveyor is not acceptable to the insurer may be for the reason if there are inherent defects, if it is found to be arbitrary, excessive, exaggerated, etc., it must specify cogent reasons, without which it is not free to appoint the second surveyor or surveyors till it gets a report which would satisfy its interest. Alternatively, it can be stated that there must be sufficient ground to disagree with the findings of surveyor/surveyors. There is no prohibition in the Insurance Act for appointment of second surveyor by the insurance company, but while doing so, the insurance company has to give satisfactory reasons for not accepting the report of the first surveyor and the need to appoint second surveyor."
8. During arguments before me as well as in the grounds of petition, the complainant has not been able to provide satisfactory explanation to the points raised in the report of the surveyor. It has been stated in the revision petition that the petitioner/complainant accepted the amount of ₹3,24,768/- after the decision of the District Forum and this could not be treated as full and final settlement as the petitioner/complainant had approached the Consumer Fora for grant of proper compensation. However, this contention of the petitioner is without any force, because he has not been able to prove anywhere on record that he is entitled for the payment of any additional amount than that assessed in the report of the surveyor.
9. Based on the discussion above, it is held that there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is ordered to be dismissed and the order passed by the State Commission is upheld as it does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity or jurisdictional error. There shall be no order as to costs.
...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER