National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Suresh Movies Film Distributors vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 18 August, 2020
Author: R.K. Agrawal
Bench: R.K. Agrawal
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 701 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 23/01/2018 in Complaint No. 192/2013 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh) 1. M/S. SURESH MOVIES FILM DISTRIBUTORS REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
M. MALIKARJUNA RAO
D NO 7-3-708, 1 FLOOR
RASHTRAPATHI RAOD
SECUNDERABAD - 500 003 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 3 FLOOR 7 JT ROAD
CHURCH GATE MUMBAI - 400 020 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL,PRESIDENT HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER
For the Appellant : For the Appellant : Ms. Vaishnavi Merla, Advocate For the Respondent : For the Respondent : Mr. Kishore Rawat, Advocate
Dated : 18 Aug 2020 ORDER
R.K. AGRAWAL, J., PRESIDENT
IA No. 8295 / 2018
M/s. Suresh Movies Film Distributors, Secunderabad, the Appellant has filed an Application being IA No. 8295/2018 seeking condonation of 37 days' delay in filing the present Appeal.Heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the averments made in the Application seeking condoantion of short delay of 37 days in filing the First Appeal.We are satisfied that the Appellant had given sufficient reasons for condonation of the delay.Accordingly for the reasons stated in the Application, delay of 37 days in filing the present Appeal is condoned and the First Appeal be treated as having been filed within limitation.IA No. 8295/2018 stands allowed.
FIRST APPEAL
M/s. Suresh Movies Film Distributors have filed the present First Appeal against the Order dated 23.01.2018 passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as State Commission), whereby the Complaint filed by M/s Suresh Movies Film Distributors Secunderabad, (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) had been partly allowed and Complainant was directed to produce the Original Records of the theatres relating to collections during the relevant period and on such production of the same, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party Insurance Company) was directed to settle the claim within 15 days from the date of submissions of the documents.
Brief facts of the case as narrated in the Complaint are that the Complainant is engaged in the business of Film Distribution.It had taken up the business to distribute the Telugu feature film "Namo Venkatesha" which was proposed to be released on 04.01.2010. The Complainant took 'Special Contingency Insurance for Distributor's Loss of Revenue' Policy No.111600/48/2010/352 for the period from 14.01.2010 to 14.03.2010 from the Opposite Party Insurance Company, to avoid the possibility of incurring losses due to riots, strikes etc. for ₹8.75 crores for loss of revenue and ₹0.25 Crores towards prints and publicity. The said film was distributed in Nizam area in the State of Andhra Pradesh but due to Telangana agitation for separate State, the cinema theatres were closed on a call given to observe bandh by Telangana activists resulting in cancellation and interruption of shows and it affected the revenue of the film and the estimated loss of revenue in Nizam area was arrived at ₹39,41,932/-. The Complainant reported loss of revenue and collections to the Representatives of the Opposite Party Insurance Company, who had deputed its Surveyor, M/s Puri Crawford Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors (India) Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the Surveyor). After inspection, the Surveyor had requested some information. The Complainant had furnished the information whatever asked for on 05.04.2012 and the same was cross verified by the Representative of the Opposite Party Insurance Company but subsequently there was no correspondence. The Complainant issued a notice to the Opposite Party Insurance Company for early settlement of the claim. In response to the same, the Opposite Party Insurance Company had sent a letter on 07.11.2012 intimating that the liability of the Insurer in respect of claim arising out of the political disturbance related only to 35% of the admissible loss. However, it was stated that Mr. A. Sateesh Kumar or M/s ASSK Corporate Advisory Services, Chennai was appointed as a Consultant for the subject claim and they did not hear about the claim either from the Surveyor or from the Complainant. It was informed that the Complainant had submitted its claim for ₹39,41,932/- and that the Insured was also advised that the Surveyor required verification of each and every theatre collection register of affected theaters and comparable theatres. In the month of July 2011, the Complainant had organized for verification of Daily Collection Registers (hereinafter referred to as DCR) and the Surveyor randomly selected 20 affected theaters in Hyderabad City. Though the Surveyor visited the theatres but could not verify any of the records for the reason either the theater Manager was not present or the DCR registers were not readily available at the time of their visits and that they had issued final survey report advising closure of the claim. The Complainant submitted that although the Surveyor had collected required information and the information sought for by the Surveyor was supplied by the Complainant yet the Opposite Party Insurance Company did not settle the claim, which amounts to deficiency in service. Aggrieved by the repudiation of Insurance Claim, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission seeking a direction to the Opposite Party Insurance Company for payment of ₹39,41,392/- towards loss of revenue covered under the Policy issued by it alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of lodging the Complaint till realization and cost.
The Opposite Party Insurance Company resisted the Complaint by filing its Written Version before the State Commission and contended that the Complainant is not a 'Consumer' as defined under section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and therefore, there is no Consumer Dispute. As per clause 8.9 of the Insurance Policy the disputes which may arise in relation to the Policy shall be subject to the Mumbai jurisdiction. The claim made by the Complainant is treated as "No claim" on account of failure to fulfill its part of obligation under the Policy as the requisite documents were not made available and did not ensure that the inspection proposed by the Surveyor to check with the original records maintained by the Theatres to verify their daily collection registers etc., materialize and consequently the Complainant became disentitled to make any claim.It was also contended that as per clause 8.7 of the Policy the Insurer shall have the right to examine any letter, accounts or other documents in possession or control of the Insured relating to the interest of the Insured.As per Clause -7 of the Policy, claims for loss of earnings of the affected shows shall be based on the actual earnings for the subsequent shows, on resumption, multiplied by the percentage of average collection for seven days following the last affected day etc. as detailed therein. In the absence of having access to verify the collections of the theatres which are randomly identified by the Surveyor appointed for loss assessment, there is no feasibility for Opposite Party Insurance Company to arrive and take a position about the justification of the claim made and resultantly the file was closed as "no claim". Therefore, it cannot be attributed that there is any deficiency in rendering services by the Opposite Party Insurance Company relating to the Policy issued to the Complainant. The Surveyor could not assess the loss as the Insured had not furnished the related records/proofs, to establish the incident and also to establish the loss of revenue. The loss was required to be supported with necessary proofs/evidence/records as mentioned in the terms of the Policy conditions. The Surveyor also could not verify the records of the respective theatres as the theatre management/respective representative of the Insured were hesitant to share the data with the Surveyor regarding the theatre occupation during the cancellation/interruptions of the shows and the corresponding loss of revenue. Even if there is any admissible claim under the Policy issued, the liability of Opposite Party Insurance Company, is subject to the Special Conditions.
The Opposite Party Insurance Company, without prejudice to the aforementioned contentions raised, also submitted that if the Complainant was ready to produce the evidence to the Surveyor and also to provide the original records of the theatres regarding collections during the relevant period, it would consider the claim on merits. The Opposite Party Insurance Company, as a special case, was willing to provide another opportunity to the Complainant to substantiate the loss by producing documents/proof/evidence/DCR demanded by Surveyor to arrive at the monetary compensation/claim amount and also to corroborate loss incident; provided all these actions are completed in a time bound time of 15 days.
It was also stated by the Opposite Party that the Complainant was not entitled for amount claimed towards loss of revenue and interest as there is no valid claim made by the Complainant and as such it was rightly treated as 'No Claim'. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
After hearing Learned Counsel for the Complainant and the Opposite Party Insurance Company and on perusal of the material available on record, regarding plea of Territorial Jurisdiction, the State Commission observed that as per Section 17(2)(c) of the Act, it is very clear that the place where the cause of action arises wholly or in part, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaints for the value of the goods or services and the compensation if any claimed. No doubt, the Policy was issued in Mumbai and the payment was made at Mumbai but the office of the Complainant was situated at Hyderabad and also the loss occurred to the Complainant in Hyderabad, Secunderabad and rest of the Telangana Areas which are within the jurisdiction of the State Commission, as such, the objection raised by the Opposite Party was not sustainable.
Regarding the plea of the Opposite Party Insurance Company that Complainant does not fall under the definition of "Consumer" as defined under Section 2(i)(d) of the Act as by doing business of film distributorship, it was engaged in commercial activities, the State Commission held that the said plea raised by the Insurer has no force. The State Commission held that it is well settled now that insurance is never done for any commercial purpose or commercial activity; it is always for indemnification of loss to be sustained by the Insured during the validity of the Policy of Insurance and in that eventuality, the Insurer is liable to indemnify the loss occasioned to the Insured unless there is any breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy on the part of the Insured. In the present case, the dispute is between the Insured and the Insurer with regard to the revenue loss occasioned to the Insured due to call given by the Telangana Activists resulting in cancellation and interruption of shows during the subsistence of Insurance Policy and, as such, it cannot be said that the Complainant does not fall under the definition of "Consumer" and the Consumer Complaint was not maintainable before the State Commission. On merits, the State Commission observed as under:-
"19. It appears that the Complainant instead of providing the required documents as requested for in the final survey report got issued legal notice dated 20.09.2012 marked as Ex.A10 stating that in spite of furnishing requisite information the Opposite Party not coming forward to settle the claim and hence calling upon the opposite party to settle the claim forthwith. The Opposite Party gave reply dated 07.11.2012 marked as Ex.A11 reiterating the contents mentioned in the final survey report and informed that if the Complainant is ready to submit the requisite documents they can reopen the claim and reprocess the same based on its merits. The Complainant in turn gave reply through his Counsel wherein he stated in its reply that they are forwarding some of the copies of the documents and requested for early settlement. The complainant also submitted the monetary claim in the format which is self-explanatory. Though the Complainant submitted some of the documents, but not all the documents, which the Surveyor asked for. When the Complainant did not provide required documents, then the Opposite Party declared the claim of the Complainant as "NO CLAIM". THE Complainant itself did not take interest to submit all the documents as required by them to the Opposite Party for settlement of its claim, therefore, it cannot be held that the Opposite Party committed any deficiency in service.
20. The Opposite Party in its Written Arguments stated that if the Complainant is now ready to produce the evidence to the Surveyor and also the original records of the theaters relating to collections during the relevant period, they will consider the claim on merits. Therefore, basing on the submission of the Opposite Party the Complainant is directed to furnish the original records of the theaters relating to collections during the relevant period and on providing the same the opposite party is directed to settle the claim within 15 days from the date of submission of documents. If the Opposite Party is not settled the claim even after submission of documents, the Complainant can approach the Commission by filing a fresh complaint. Hence, the points no.2 and 3 are answered accordingly."
As already mentioned hereinabove the State Commission vide Order dated 23.01.2018 had partly allowed the Complaint by giving the following directions:-
"In the result the Complaint is allowed directing the Complainant to produce the original records of the theaters relating to collections during the relevant period and on such production of the same, the Opposite Party is directed to settle the claim within 15 days from the date of submission of documents. If the opposite party failed to settle the same even after submission of the records, the complainant can approach the Commission by filing a fresh complaint. There shall be no order as to costs."
Feeling aggrieved by the Order dated 23.01.2018 passed by the State Commission, the Appellant/Complainant has filed the present Appeal.
Ms. Vaishnavi Merla, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Complainant strenuously argued that the State Commission had given an incorrect and wrong direction that the Complainant shall produce the original records of the theatres relating to collection during the relevant period and on such production the Opposite Party Insurance Company was directed to settle the claim within 15 days from the date of submission of documents.She further submitted that the Appellant had already furnished the entire record regarding the collections during the relevant period to the Surveyor appointed by the Opposite Party Insurance Company and they have no further record to furnish and that too after a long period of 8 years. They did not keep the copies of the documents, therefore, they are unable to furnish the same again to the Opposite Party Insurance Company as per their demand letter, dated 07.11.2012. However, they had furnished the copy of the acknowledgement given by the Surveyor alongwith other available documents to the Opposite Party Insurance Company.
She further submitted that the Opposite Party Insurance Company did not issue any notice to them prior to closing the claim as 'No Claim' and without giving any opportunity to them the claim was closed, which is against the Principle of Audi Alteram Partem and Principle of Natural Justice.
She contended that the Impugned Order passed by the State Commission is erroneous and illegal and it should be set aside and the Opposite Party Insurance Company be directed to settle the claim based on the documents already given to the Surveyor who has acknowledged the receipt thereof and the loss of documents, if any, is between the Opposite Party Insurance Company and the Surveyor and the Complainant cannot be made to suffer for the same.
Per contra, Mr. Kishore Rawat, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party Insurance Company supported the order passed by the State Commission as according to him the State Commission had passed a well-reasoned order which is based on a correct and rightful appreciation of evidence and material available on record and does not call for any interference.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the Parties, perused the Impugned Order passed by the State Commission, the Complaint, the Written Statement, all the documents on Record and also the Written Submissions filed by both the Parties.
For a better appreciation of the various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the Parties, the various terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy in question have to be interpreted in detail.For a better appreciation of the terms of the Insurance Policy, we deem it appropriate to refer and reproduce below the various terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, which are relevant for deciding the issue which arises in this Appeal:-
"Oriental Insurance
Special Contingency Insurance
For
Distributor's Loss of Revenue
Policy no. 111600/48/2010/352
Period - 14.01.2010 to 14.03.2010
Insured - Suresh Movies Film Distributors
Telugu Feature Film - 'Namo Venkatesa'
SPECIAL CONTINGENCY INSURANCE POLICY SCHEDULE
Policy Issuing Office
CBU 1, Oriental House, 3rd Floor, 7, J.T. Road, Mumbai - 400 020.
Policy Number
11160/48/2010/352
Period of Insurance
From 00:00 14.01.2010
To : 14.03.2010 Midnight
Name of the insured
Suresh Movies Film Distributors
(A Unit of Suresh Productions Entertainment Limited)
Address of the insured
D. No. 8-2-293/82/J111/6, Ramanaidu Studios Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad 500 033
Business of the insured
Film Distribution
Title of the proposed film
"NAMO VENKATESA" in Telugu - Starring Venkatesh, Trisha & Others. Directed by Sreenu Vaitla
Type of the film
Feature Film
Date of Release
14th January 2010
Territories to be covered
Nizam Area in the State of Andhra Pradesh
Total estimated revenues for 60 days
Rs.8.75 Crores
Sum insured
Rs.8.75 Crores For loss of Revenue
Rs.0.25 Crores For Prints and Publicity
Premium
Rs.4,50,000/-
Service Tax
Rs.46,350/-
Total
Rs.4,96,350/-
Scope of Cover
As per special contingency insurance policy for Distributors Loss of Revenue.
Broker
LC000000104 - Life and General Insurance Brokers Private Limited.
Claims procedures
In case of claim approach - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. CBU 1, Mumbai
Premium Collection Details
Collection No. 51-01/3008000773 dated 12th January, 2010
Special contingency Insurance for Film Distributors Loss of Revenue
Policy Number - 111600/48/2010/000352
In consideration of the insured having paid the premium to The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (hereinafter called as insurer) as shown in the schedule, the insurer agrees, subject to the terms, conditions, coverage and exclusions contained herein or endorsed or otherwise expressed hereon, to indemnify the insured for loss of revenue within the first 60 days from the date of release of movie arising due to any of the insured perils covered hereunder during the policy period. The liability of the insurer for any one event or the total limit as described in the policy shall not exceed in the aggregate in any one period of insurance the sum insured set against such loss of revenue from the territories mentioned in the Policy.
1.0 Insured Perils / Coverage
Insurer hereby agrees, subject to the limitations, terms and conditions herein after mentioned, to indemnify the insured for their loss of revenue due to any drop in collections / revenue directly attributable to:
1. Riot, Strike, Malicious Damage
2. Epidemics, national and state mourning,
3. Strike, bandh call, ban call of the particular movie given by a political or a non-political organization
4. Any act of Terrorism and/or threat thereof (whether actual or perceived) regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any other sequence to the loss and also any loss resulting from or in connection with any act of Terrorism or feat thereof.
5. Blockade of public access roads due to public disputes, public demonstration, riots strike and civil commotion, malicious damage
6. Act of God perils.
7. Loss arising out of interruption of Electricity/Power for more than 12 hours due to major breakdown in the power grid of the area, leading to cancellation of shows.
8. Loss arising due to cancellation/postponement of shows arising out of delay in arrival of being transported or inaccessibility of roads due perils covered above AND also due to any damages or loss of prints during such transit caused by insured perils.
9. Additional cost on marketing, promotions and publicity due to delay in release of movie up to 3 days arising due to any of the insured perils above. Delay in release due to any kind of business disputes are not covered."
2.0 Special Conditions:
i) The liability of the insurers in respect of claims, arising out of Political disturbance related to creation of separate state of 'Telangana', shall be restricted to only 35% of the admissible loss.
ii) The additional cost incurred on marketing, promotion and publicity in case of delay in release of a movie, arising due to any of the insured perils above, shall be covered upto a maximum of three days. The liability of the insurers, in such cases, shall not be more than 10% of the 'Sum Insured for loss of revenue'.
3.0 Exclusions:
This Policy shall not cover:
1. Any losses arising directly or indirectly from any debt, insolvency, commercial failure,
2. Loss or damage caused by or resulting from any act or incident which occurs or is committed directly or indirectly by reason of or in connection with war, invasion, act of foreign enemy, hostilities or war like operations (whether war be declared or not) civil war, or seizure of power arising from a military conspiracy.
3. Any loss arising from any failure of the insured reasonably comply with the local and national laws and regulations.
4. Loss due to banning of the movie by any State/Central Government or Municipal Authority or Court for whatsoever reason.
5. Losses on account of Piracy.
6. Physical damage to theatre in the territories mentioned in the schedule attached.
4.0 Excess:
i) 0.1% of the sum insured in each and every claim except (ii) below
ii) 0.2% of the sum insured in each and every claim related to political disturbance arising out of the "Telangana issue...........
................
8.7 Examination of Records Insurer shall have the right to examine any letter, accounts or other documents in possession or control of the insured relating to the interest insured hereunder.
........
9.0 Claims:
Claims for loss of earnings of the affected shows shall be based on the actual earning of the subsequent shows, on resumption, multiplied by the percentage of average weekly collection of the theatre."
From a perusal of the various Clauses from the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy reproduced above, we find that the Policy is a Special Contingency Insurance for Film Distributors Loss of Revenue and it covers about 9 types of Insured perils.The Special Condition No. 2.0 restricts the liability of the Opposite Party Insurance Company to only 35% of the admissible loss in case the loss arises out of Political disturbance related to creation of separate State of 'Telangana' and additional cost incurred towards marketing, promotion and publicity in case of delay in release of a movie etc. shall not be more than 10% of the sum assured for loss of revenue.Clause 3.0 is Exclusionary clause whereas Clause 4.0 deals with Excesses.Clause 8.7 provides for Examination of Record by the Opposite Party Insurance Company which can exercise its right to examine any letter, account or other documents in possession or control of the Insured relating to the Insured interest whereas Clause 9.0 deals with claims and provides that the claim for loss for earnings of affected shows shall be based on actual earning of the subsequent shows on resumption, multiplied by the percentage weekly collection of the theatre.
In the present Appeal there is no dispute regarding the Special Contingency Insurance for Distributor's Loss of Insurance Policy issued by the Opposite Party Insurance Company in favour of the Complainant, the terms and the conditions of the said Policy sum insured, agitation and closure of cinema theatres due to demand of theseparate Telangana State, the loss of revenue suffered by the Complainant due to the closure of the theatres and the claim of the loss of revenue made by the Complainant submitted in the prescribed format alongwith the DCRs as acknowledged by the Surveyor on 16th May, 2012.
The only issue is regarding non-production of various records demanded by the Opposite Party Insurance Company for settling the claim.From the material on record we find that the Complainant vide letter dated 05.04.2012 had sent the details of Distributors Loss of Revenue in the format enclosing therein each and every theatre's detailed information in the Soft Copy and consolidated information on Hard Copy to the Surveyor, which was duly acknowledged by the Surveyor on 16.05.2012.The letter dated 05.04.2012 sent by the Complainant to the Surveyor and the Acknowledgement dated 16.05.2012 issued by the Surveyor is reproduced below for ready reference:
Dated: 05.04.2012 To The SURVEYOR, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, HYDERABAD.
Dear Sir, SUB:- Distributors Loss of Revenue - Reg.
We herewith furnishing the details as per instructions given by you, we are re-submitting our picture "NAMOVENKATESHA" Details for distributor's loss of revenue in your formats Each and every theatre's detailed information in the SOFT COPY and consolidated information's HARD COPY. Please pay our claim amount at your earliest possible.
Please receive the same and acknowledge receipt.
Thanking you, Yours truly, For SURESH MOVIES FILM DISTRIBUTORS Sd/-
MANAGER."
DATE :- 16-May-2012 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT We have received copy of D.C.Rs from the Asian Theatres Pvt. Ltd. for the movie of Name Venkatesha From 14-01-2010 to 31-01-2010. The D.C.R.s received for claim of Name Venkatesh Picture.
For the below mention theatres:-
Sl. No. Center Theatre Name Narayanguda Shanthi Secunderbad Manju Dilsuknagar Megha Kukatpalli Bramaramba Jeedimetla Bhujanga Malkajgiri Raghavendra R.C. Puram Geeth Vanashthalipuram Vishnu 70mm Karmanghat Sri Lakkshmi Moosapet Lakshmikala Langarhouse Pratap Tanduar Shanthi Zaheerabad Monan Siddipet Venkateswara Gajwel Yadagiri Miryalaguda Natraj Kodad Srinivasa Khammam Srinivasa Kothagudem Maheswari Bhdrachlam Vijayabhaskr Hanumakonda Sridevi Siricilla Vimal Kamareddy Priya Adilabad Natraj Manchiryala Srinivasa Nahboobnagar Srinivasa Shadnagar Sai Raja Nagarkurnool Ravi For Puri Crawford & Associates India Ltd."
The Opposite Party Insurance Company had repudiated the Claim made by the Complainant vide letter dated 07.11.2012 on the ground that the Claim could not be verified from the relevant records.
From the various documents on Record, we find that the Complainant had produced the copies of DCRs from 14.01.2010 to 31.01.2010 to the Surveyor which was duly acknowledged by the Surveyor on 16th May 2012.The DCRs have been submitted by the Complainant to the Surveyor.Even though under Clause 8.7 of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, the Opposite Party Insurance Company has the right to examine any record of the claimant but there is no question of not processing the Claim of loss made by the Complainant on the sole ground that complete records have not been produced.It was incumbent upon the Surveyor as also on the Opposite Party Insurance Company to determine the Loss of Revenue on the basis of the DCRs filed by the Complainant and there is no question of producing any further record.The incident of the Claim of Loss is of the period 14.01.2010 to 14.03.2010.Since then more than 8 years had passed, when the State Commission had directed the Complainant to produce the Record before the Opposite Party Insurance Company in spite of the fact that the specific case of the Complainant was that they do not have any other records.We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that it will be too harsh on the Complainant to ask them to produce all the records as asked for by the Opposite Party Insurance Company and taking into consideration the special and peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the interest of Justice will be served by directing the Opposite Party Insurance Company to decide the Claim of Loss of Revenue on the basis of the DCRs submitted by the Complainant to the Surveyor which stands duly acknowledged by the Surveyor on 16.05.2012.
In view of the foregoing discussions, the Impugned Order dated 23.01.2018 passed by the State Commission is modified with the direction to the Opposite Party Insurance Company to process the Claim of Loss of Revenue made by the Complainant on the basis of the DCRs submitted by it, which stands acknowledged by the Surveyor vide Acknowledgement dated 16.05.2012.The Appeal succeeds and is allowed.The Opposite Party Insurance Company shall finalise the Claim of Loss of Revenue filed by the Complainant within 3 months from the date of this Order.However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Parties shall bear their own costs.
......................J R.K. AGRAWAL PRESIDENT ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER