State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Shivshakti Shetkari Sahakari ... vs National Insurance Co.Ltd., on 18 October, 2011
1 C.C..No.: 09/2007
Date of filing :01.08.2007
Date of order :18.10.2011
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 09 OF 2007
M/s Shivshakti Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar
Karkhana Ltd.,
Kai Bhai Udhavrao Patil Nagar,
Washi(Tandulwadi), Tq.Washi,
Dist.Osmanabad 413 503. ...COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
1. National Insurance Co.Ltd.,
registered office, 3, Middleton Street,
Calcutta - 700 071.
2. National Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Unit NO.27149, Branch Office,
Malu Building, Hanuman Chowk,
Main Road, Latur 413 512.
3. National Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Divisional Office, Shubharaya Tower,
4th Floor, Datta Chowk,
Solapur 413 001.
4. National Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Pune Regional Office, Pune.
5. The Director of Insurance,
Maharastra State, Griha Nirman Bhavan,
261 First Floor, Opp.Kala Nagar,
Bandra(East),
Mumbai 400 051.
6. Bhatawadekar and Co.,
Fire Marine and Engineering
Surveyors Loss Assessors and valuers,
Flat No.104, Balwant Niwas 1846/47,
Sadashiv Peth,
Pune - 411 030.
2 C.C..No.: 09/2007
7. Mr.A.A.Raichurkar,
Plot No.109, Laxmi Peth,
Damani Nagar, Behind Jam Mills,
Solapur - 413 001. ...OPPONENTS.
CORAM : Mr.D.N.Admane, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial
Member.
Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Shri.S.T.Ghute for complainant, Adv.Shri.M.A.Mahajan for opponent No.1 to 5, Adv.Shri.D.S.Kulkarni for respondent No.6.
O R A L O R D E R Per Mr.K.B.Gawali , Hon`ble Member.
1. This complaint is filed against opponent Insurance Company for not settling the insurance claim amounting to Rs.58,07,659/- on account of loss caused by the heavy rain associated with violent storm.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under.
Complainant Co-operative Sugar factory in the name and style "M/s Shivshakti Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana Ltd." Washi, Tq.Washi, Dist.Osmanabad is registered in accordance with the provision of Maharashtra Co-operative Society 1960 in the year 1988-89 and started manufacturing of crystallised sugar in the year 2002. It is the case of complainant that on 10.6.2003 there was stormy rain in the surrounding villages and particularly in the area of complainant factory which caused damage to the factory building, staff quarters and stock of sugar kept in open area. The loss claimed is Rs.9,13,970/- to the factory building and quarters. Whereas the loss caused to the sugar amounting to Rs.21,33,690/- and quantity of sugar damaged is given at 7902 quintal. Thus total loss claimed is 3 C.C..No.: 09/2007 Rs.30,47,600/-. It is contended by the complainant that immediately after the incident of damage due to said stormy rain on 10.6.2003 opponent NO.2 was informed about the same on the telephone. Thereafter on the next day i.e. 11.6.2003 opponent No.2 was given detail information about loss caused to the complainant and requested to sanction the insurance claim of Rs.30,47,660/-. That, the complainant by his letter dated 12.6.2003 also informed to the Tahasildar, Washi requesting to visit factory premises. Police at Washi were also informed simultaneously. That, after receiving information about the incident opponent company appointed surveyor Shri.Bhatwadekar & Co., Surveyor and Loss Assessor who visited the spot on 13.6.2003 and surveyed the damages, made necessary enquiries and called certain documents from the managing director of the company at complainant factory. That, some of documents called were unwanted. However all the documents were submitted to the surveyor Bhatwade & Co. till 28.6.2003 and on the basis of said survey and documents the surveyor Bhatawadekar & co. prepared the survey report and submitted the same vide letter dated 23.7.2006. Tahasildar, Washi also conducted the panchanama on 1.7.2003 through concern Talathi.
3. It is further contended by the complainant that opponent company appointed another surveyor namely Shri.Arun A.Raichurkar who again demanded some documents which were already submitted to other surveyor i.e. Bhatwadekar & Co. just to protract the settlement of the claim. Complainant again submitted the detail communication vide letter dated 16.8.2004 to Bhatwadekar & Co. and further vide letter dated 27.10.2004 and 21.12.2004. But there was no positive action on the part of opponents. It is therefore contended by the complainant that inspite of filing of the complaint claim for the said amount and constant follow up made by complainant the claim was not settled due to which complainant factory had to bear burden of interest of loan of the bank and also caused mental harassment 4 C.C..No.: 09/2007 and incidental expenditure. Complainant factory therefore issued legal notice dated 19.4.2006 and demanded total amount of Rs.49,59,660.26 which included Rs.30,47,660/- as cost of the damages, Rs.13,12,000/- interest on the amount of Rs.30,47,660/- for the period of 3 years @ 15% i.e. up to 19.4.2006, in addition Rs.5 lakhs towards mental agony and Rs.1 lakh as cost of the complaint. Thus total amount of Rs.49,59,660.26 was demanded. But there was no action on the part of opponents hence alleging to have committed deficiency in service by opponents, initially complaint was filed on 6.6.2006 bearing No.80/06 in this Commission at Mumbai. During the pendancy of said complaint claim was repudiated by opponents on 23.2.2007 on two false and baseless grounds. On the application of the advocate for the complainant this Commission at Mumbai passed order dated 12.3.2007 by which complainant was allowed to withdraw the complaint with permission to file fresh complaint. Accordingly, fresh complaint bearing No.9/2007 is filed on 30.7.2007 in this Commission by which claimed total amount of insurance of Rs.58,60,659/- which included further amount of interest up to 31.7.2007. This complaint is filed through Shri.Bhagwantrao Narhari Das Vice-Chairman of the complaint sugar factory who is said to have been authorised by Managing Committee of the factory by resolution dated 27.4.2007.
4. Complainant has submitted following documents in support of his claim;
i) The copies of the letter dated 13.8.2003 and
panchanama dated 1.7.2003,
ii) The copy of the letter dated 4.9.2003,
iii) The copy of letter dated 15.10.2003,
iv) The copy of the letter dated 10.12.2003,
v) The copy of the said letter dated 10.6.2004,
vi) The copy of letter dated 16.8.2004,
5 C.C..No.: 09/2007
vii) The copies of the letters dated 9.10.2004 and 7.12.2004,
viii) The copy of letter dated 27.10.2004,
ix) The copy of letter dated 2.12.2004,
x) The copy of Advocate`s notice dated 19.4.2006,
xi) The copy complaint No.80/2006 and order dated
12.3.2007,
xii) The copy of letter dated 23.2.2007,
xiii) The copy of letter dated 17.2.2007 issued by complainant.
5. Opponent No.1 to 4 appeared before the Forum and denied the claim. Opponent NO.1 to 4 submitted their joint written version whereas opponent No.5 submitted his written version separately. Stand taken by these opponents is more or less the same which is briefed as ahead. It is contended that complaint is not tenable as there is breach of terms and conditions of the policy. It is alleged that the complainant has misrepresented, misdescribed and not disclosed material facts of the case. It is further contended that policy No.3301861 covers only risk of factory building and store office but does not include the staff quarter. It is submitted that by endorsement No.3330608 dated 18.11.2002 it is agreed that policy having co. insurance scheme i.e. 60% with Government insurance fund and remaining 40% with insurance company, but not shown by the complainant in the policy. It is further contended that other policy quoted by complainant is not correct and same is having No.0271401/11/02/3102161, the period of which is 7.1.2003 to 6.1.2004 and sum insured is Rs.2,50,000,00/- which covers risk of 25000 bags. This policy also consist of co-insurance assured of 60% Government and 40% Insurance Company as agreed by endorsement No.306 dated 7.1.2003. That, the same is not disclosed by the complainant. Therefore it is contended that total claim is not acceptable to the Insurance Company.
6 C.C..No.: 09/20076. It is further submitted by opponents that after receiving information about incident opponent No.1 to 4 appointed opponent No.6 i.e. Bhatwadekar & Co., Surveyor and Loss Assessor to assess the loss, whereas opponent No.5 appointed opponent No.7 Shri.A.A.Riachurkar to survey and assess the loss. Surveyor Bhatwadekar & Co. visited the site on 13.6.2003 whereas other surveyor Shri.Raichurkar visited the same on 21.7.2003. It is contended by opponents that inspite of constant follow up by these surveyors through oral and written correspondence complainant failed to provide require document such as quotation of any architecture or engineer for the repairing cost of the damage to the main factory building, meteorology report about rain on the date of event, certificate of excise department and other supporting documents towards loss of sugarcane. That, finally on the basis of available record and spot inquiry the surveyor Shri.Raichurkar submitted his final observation about the claim of complainant on 12.7.2006 stating therein that the claim liability of the opponents does not arise whereas other surveyor i.e.Bhatwadekar & Co. submitted detail report on 13.7.2006 as per which the assessment of loss is Rs.4,36,631/- and the same is maximum liability of insurance in case the loss would have been admissible. However, since there is breach of condition of policy, net claim being subject to terms and condition of the policy same works out as ' nil'. Accordingly, opponent Insurance Company vide letter dated 23.2.2007 has repudiated the claim on following two grounds and contended that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
Condition No.1: This policy shall be voidable in the event of mis-representation, mis-description or non-disclosure of any material particular.
Condition No.6(B): The insured shall also at all times at his own expenses produce, procure and give to the company all such further particulars, plans, specification books, 7 C.C..No.: 09/2007 vouchers, invoices, duplicatres or copies therof, documents, investigation reports(internal/external)proof and information with respect of the to the claim and origin and cause of the loss and the circumstances under which the loss or damage occurred and any matter touching the liability or the amount of the liability of ht ecompany as may be reasonably required by or an behalf of the company together with a declaration on both or in other legal form of the truth of the claim and of any matters connected therewith.
7. It is also averred by the opponent that as there is a breach of contract on the part of complainant it does not constitute 'consumer' dispute and hence no jurisdiction to this Commission to try the present complaint and that complainant ought to have approached to Civil Court. It is also contended that the case of complainant involves question of facts and law. Therefore not triable by summary procedure under 'Consumer Protection Act'. Hence complaint is be rejected. It is further contended that claim of complainant is Rs.58,07,659/- is vague and misconceived and totally baseless. Opponent therefore requested to dismiss the complaint with cost of Rs.1 lakh.
8. Opponent in support of their contention submitted following documents.
i) Copy of letter dated 11.6.2003 received from complainant,
ii) Copy of letter dated 20.7.2003 addressed to Managing Director, complainant factory asking certain documents, 8 C.C..No.: 09/2007
iii) Copy of letter dated 14.8.2003, 21.5.2003, 7.5.2005, 25.4.2006 regarding internal correspondence with the opponent,
iv) Copy of letter dated 5.11.2003, 4.12.2003, 10.12.2003, 29.12.2003, 9.10.2004, 7.12.2004 pertaining to the correspondence between opponent and complainant,
v) Surveyor`s report dated 12.7.2005 by surveyor Shri.Raichurkar,
vi) Surveyor`s report dated 13.6.2003 by Bhatawadekar & Co.
vii) Affidavit of Shri. Shrikrushna Vinayak Kolatkar, Branch Secretary of Bhatwadekar & Co. alongwith copy of assessment of loss of building.
viii) Copy of policy bearing No.271401/11/02/3102161,
ix) Copy of policy bearing No.271401/11/02/3301861,
x) Locational plan showing different building of sugar factory,
xi) A copy of statement dt.13.6.2003 of Shri.R.D.Pawar, Godown Keeper of the factory,
xii) A copy of letter dt.11.6.2003 bythe complainant to opponent No.2 alongwith Talathi panchanama dt.1.7.2003 letter dated 15.10.2003 by the Regional Metereological centre, Mumber to the M.D. of the factory, news paper cuttings of the incidence, claim form, copy of estimate of loss by the complainant, weighment sheets of the damaged sugar, photographs of the damages of the factory and sugar, letter dt.25.5.2006 of the Asstt.Meteorologist-II , PUne Sugar lab report dt.23.6.2003, quotations dt. 5.12.2003 received from 4 traders regarding damaged sugar and quotation dated 30.10.2003 from M/s Shesh Shah 9 C.C..No.: 09/2007 Enterprises as called by the opponent, bills showing market rates of the good sugar prior to the date of the loss.
Complainant as well as opponents were submitted written notes of arguments. Opponent NO.1 to 4 and opponent No.5 submitted their notes of argument separately.
9 The case was posted for final hearing on 21.9.2011. Adv.Shri.S.T.Ghute appeared for complainant whereas Adv.Shri.M.A.Mahajan appeared for opponent No.1 to 5. Adv.Shri.D.S.Kulkarni appeared for opponent No.6, none appeared for opponent No.7. We heard counsels of both parties at length.
Learned counsel for opponent No.1 to 5 submitted that complaint is signed by Shri. Bhawantrao S/o Narhari Dhas who had no authority to sign the complaint. He contended that complainant is a society registered under Co.operative Society Act and therefore there must be resolution authorising to sign the complaint to which there is no such resolution. He further submitted that there is no consistency in the amount of loss claimed i.e. at one place demand is made as Rs.30,47,660/- whereas at other places it is made as Rs.49,59,660/- & finally the same is made at Rs.58,07,659/-. It is further argued that the claim made is vague and not properly supported by any documentary evidence. No Meteorology report is produced to show that there was stormy rain on the date 10.6.2003. It is also contended by learned counsel that immediately after receipt of information about the incident opponent Insurance Company appointed Bhatawadekar & Co., Surveyor and Loss Assessor. That co-surveyor Shri.Raichurkar was also appointed by opponent. It is averred by learned counsel that although opponent tried to settle the claim complainant did not extend cooperation in producing documents inspite of constant follow up by the surveyor. That as per 10 C.C..No.: 09/2007 survey report it was noticed that complainant has mis-represented the claim. The said claim to the extent of damage to the staff quarters was not covered under the policy. However, complainant demanded compensation towards the same and thus alleged that complainant committed breach of condition of the policy. Therefore opponent rightly repudiated the claim.
That during the pendancy of this delivery of the judgment we received letter dated 1st Oct.2011 on 7.10.2011 from Adv.Mahajan of opponents Insurance Company by post and submitted alongwith the said letter following citations in support of his contention.
'Sunder Art Exports -Vs- United India Insurance Co.Ltd. & Anr.' reported in II(2011) CPJ 30(NC) it is held that "insured is to establish its claim for indemnification of insured loss-Insurance Company fully justified in discarding documents if they are not fully reliable".
10. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant submitted that complaint is genuine and repudiated on the false and baseless ground. He submitted that immediately after event of stormy rain opponents were informed about detail of loss and requested to appoint surveyor to assess the loss. He contended that surveyor appointed by opponents were submitted all the required documents as and when demanded. But inspite of supplying necessary documents & information the opponents prolonged settlement of the claim and finally repudiated the claim on the false and baseless ground. He argued that incident of loss to the factory and sugar stock is sufficiently proved by the evidence on record i.e. pachanama made by Talathi, newspaper cutting and even by surveyor`s report as appointed by opponent. However opponents have not granted the claim and thus committed deficiency in service. He also contended that since opponents wrongly repudiated the claim, this complaint is filed by 11 C.C..No.: 09/2007 complainant Shri.Bhagwat N.Dhas, Vice-chairman who is authorised to sign by Managing Committee of the factory by special resolution which is on record. He thus contended that complaint being genuine be allowed.
11. Learned counsel Shri.D.S.Kulkarni for opponent No.6 filed purshis that he does not want to lead his oral evidence.
12. Considering entire material on record pertaining to the complaint and the counter stand taken by opponent we have framed following main issues for our consideration and decision.
ISSUES ANSWER
I. Whether complainant is a consumer of the
opponent and whether complaint can
be decided by this Commission? -Yes.
II. Whether complainant has proved
deficiency in service on the part of
opponent? -Yes.
III. Whether complainant is entitled to receive amount of insurance claim as claimed in the complaint? -Partly yes.
IV. What order? -As per final
order.
Detail reply to each of the above said issues are given as under.
12 C.C..No.: 09/2007ISSUE NO.I It is an admitted fact that complainant sugar factory has obtained insurance policy from the opponent. It is also admitted fact that both the policies are in operation. Therefore complainant factory is consumer of the opponent Insurance Company and later is service provider of the farmer. Secondly, insurance policy is not a contract as contended by opponent Insurance Company and therefore for the so called breach of condition does not bar jurisdiction of this Commission. The contention of opponent that the present complaint involves issues of complicated facts and law and hence calls for jurisdiction of Civil Court, can not also be accepted as it is now settled principle that even such cases can be tried and decided by the Consumer Fora under Consumer Protection Act. Thus reply to issue No.I is given in 'affirmative'.
ISSUE NO.II:
As regard issue No.II it is an admitted fact by opponent Insurance Company that complainant had informed opponent No.2 Insurance Company`s branch office at Latur about incident of stormy rain and loss caused to the factory building as well as sugar stock in open area by letter on the next date of incident i.e. 10.6.2003. It has also come on record that opponent NO.1 to 4 appointed surveyor Bhatawadekar & Co. and that the surveyor of the said company visited the site on 13.6.2003 and confirmed the occurrence of incident. Report submitted by another co-surveyor Shri.Raichurkar appointed by opponent No.5 also visited site and carried out the survey. Concern Talathi of the area also visited the spot and inspection is made by Talathi made panchanama on 1.7.2003 which disclosed that there was stormy rain which caused damage to the stock of the sugar bags. There is thus sufficient evidence on record 13 C.C..No.: 09/2007 which proves that on 10.6.2003 there was stormy rain and same caused considerable loss to the complainant factory.
Initially complainant forwarded claim of Rs.33,47,548/- towards said loss which was calculated on the basis of reduction in the weight of the sugar stock in open area and said loss was remained at 1515.04 quintals. Amount of Rs.33,47,584/- was arrived at by considering the rate of Rs.1000/- per quintal for the said net loss and reprocessing charges of the same. But subsequently complainant worked out the details of loss i.e. Rs.9,13,970/- to the factory building and staff quarters and Rs.21,33,690/- to the sugar in open area total amount of Rs.30,47,660/-. That the said claim was submitted to the opponent company and followed constantly through letter dated 10.12.2003, 16.08.2004, 27.10.2004, 2.12.2004. That the opponent company did not settle the claim. Finally complainant issued legal notice dated 19th April 2006 to the opponents but no action was taken by Insurance Company to settle the claim. Hence complainant factory was constrained to file the complaint bearing No.80/06 on 6.6.2006 and subsequently the complaint No.9/2007 on 31.7.2007.
In fact surveyor Bhatawadekar & Co. submitted report on
13.7.2006 and other co-surveyor submitted his report on 12.7.2005. Thus surveyor Bhatawadekar & Co. assessed the net loss of Rs.4,36,631/- but made remark that same is not permissible. Since the complainant did not submit required documents such as weather report to establish cause of damage, quotations giving cost of repairs of factory building, thus alleged the breach of condition of policy. Whereas co-surveyor Raichurkar vide report dated 12.7.2005 on the basis of Bhatawadekar & Co.`s survey report gave his remark stating therein that insured is not liable to pay anything towards damages.
In fact when the incident of stormy rain resulting loss to the factory and sugar bag kept in open area was substantially proved it 14 C.C..No.: 09/2007 was unwarranted and unnecessary to insist upon weather report or quotation giving cost of repairs etc. In fact the surveyor also assessed the loss at Rs.4,36,631/-. It was therefore expected that the opponents should have settled the claim at least to the extent of the said amount. But instead claim was repudiated on 23.3.2007 i.e. after a period of 4 years from filing of claim and after more than 7 months from the date of submission of said survey report. Thus there is clear deficiency in service on the part of opponent. Hence we have replied issue No.II in 'affirmative'.
ISSUE NO. III :
The opponents have denied the amount claimed by complainant in respect of loss to the factory building and staff quarters on the ground that staff quarters are not covered under the policy. Secondly, according to survey of Bhatawadekar & Co. out of 151 A.C.sheets of main factory building only 67 were damaged and remaining 84 were in good condition. Hence for calculating the loss surveyor would have considered 67 A.C. sheets and worked out the loss at Rs.20,933/- after allowing depreciation cost. As regard loss of sugar the surveyor has taken actual weighment of 200 damaged bags of per 50 Kg. pack of sugarcane and 92 bags of having 100 Kg. per pack of sugar. As per said weighment the damaged quantity of sugar @ 7902 quintal as per complainant worked out to 6975.85 quintals. Thus actual weighment worked out 6975.85 quintals of damage to sugar. Considering the market rate for good sugarcane @ Rs.978/- per quintal surveyor worked out value of damaged sugar as per quantity of 7902 quintals at Rs.77,28,625/-. Thereafter considering rate of Rs.1000/- for 50 Kg. pack and Rs.1060/- per quintal for 100 Kg. pack quoted by M/s Shesh Shah Enterprises, Solapur. Value of damaged sugarcane for actual weight of 6975.85 quintals worked out to Rs.72,85,535/-. Difference between above said two values were worked out by surveyor 15 C.C..No.: 09/2007 at Rs.4,43,110/- and the same was treated as loss of sugarcane as against Rs.21,33,690/- claimed by the complainant.
The surveyor further worked out the cost of sugar per quintal based on market rate as valid on the date of loss by taking rate of levy quota per quintal @10% of actual rate i.e. 10% of 1260.86 equal to Rs.126.09 and rate against free quota per quintal @ 90% of actual rate i.e. 90 % of Rs.978/- is Rs.880.20. Thus total rate taken by surveyor is Rs.1006.29 per quintal ( 126.09 + 880.20). Taking sum insured at Rs.1000/- per quintal, the factor for adjustment of loss of sugar is taken @ 0.99 ( 1000/1006.29) and worked out proportionate adjustment value as Rs.4,38,679 ( 4,43,110 X 0.99). Thus total loss is Rs.20,933/- for main factory building and Rs.4,38,679/- for sugar damage i.e. total Rs.4,59,612/-. Thereafter taking 5% excess claim amount as per policy subject to minimum of Rs.10,000/- and applying this factor net loss is worked out by surveyor Bhatawadekar & Co. as Rs.4,36,631/- ( 4,59,612 x 5%).
The net loss worked out as above by surveyor cannot be accepted. It is in fact quite illogical to consider the rate of good sugar @Rs.978/- per quintal as against average rate of Rs.1030/- per quintal ( Rs.1000/- for 50 Kg. pack, Rs.1060/- for 100 Kg. pack) for damaged sugar having quoted by trader M/s Shesh Shah Enterprises, Solapur. Question is how rate for damaged sugar is more than the rate of good sugar. It is simple that the rate of good sugar must be more than the rate of damaged sugar. Secondly, co-surveyor Shri.Raichurkar while working out loss he has considered the offer given by M/s Shesh Shah Enterprises @Rs.1060 per quintal and sum insured @ Rs.1000/- per quintal and on the basis of these two rates stated that as rate of damage sugar is more than that of insured amount, there is no loss to the insured i.e.complainant. This conclusion is quite improper and funny because the loss is to be compared to the market value of the goods damaged as on the date of 16 C.C..No.: 09/2007 loss and not insured value. Thus conclusion as to the loss to the complainant as drawn by both the surveyors are not at all acceptable. Hence considering these facts and figure available before us we have worked out the loss as under:
i) Loss to the factory building: The surveyor Bhatawadekar & Co. has considered 67 A.C. sheets out of total 151 sheets as damaged. Considering the same number of 67 sheets, its value as worked out by surveyor is at Rs.51,255/- and deducting there from depreciation cost at 2.5% i.e. Rs.1281.38 and cost of hooks @Rs.174/- the net loss is worked out at Rs.49,800/-. The surveyor however further considering total depreciated cost of building and comparing the same to the sum insured which come to 42.03%.......worked out the loss of A.C. sheets at only Rs.20930/-
(49,800X 42.03%) which is not acceptable as it is improper to compare the loss with the insured sum. Hence we consider the loss of A.C. sheet of factory building at Rs.49,800/-.
ii) Loss of sugar : As mentioned above actual weight of damaged sugar as worked out by surveyor Bhatawadekar & Co. is 6975.85 quintal. Rate of good sugar as prevailing on the date of incident as taken by surveyor Bhatawadekar & Co. is Rs.978/- per quintal. In fact there are bills regarding sale of good sugar on record which show the said rate comes to Rs.1063/- per quintal after adding to the principle rate of Rs.978/- the excise duty, additional cess etc. ( Rs.978 + 34+37+48). The maximum rate received for damaged sugar as per quotations called by complainant factory is Rs.865/- per quintal and the same is considered. The rate of damaged sugar as taken @ Rs.1030/- per quintal(average) by the surveyor cannot be accepted as the same is more than that of good sugar. Loss per quintal is therefore Rs.198/- per quintal ( 1063-865). So taking into account loss of per quintal at Rs.198/- the total loss for the damaged quantity of sugar i.e. 6975.85 quintals worked out to Rs.13,81,218.30 which is 17 C.C..No.: 09/2007 rounded to Rs.13,81,000/- as against Rs.21,33,690.28 as claimed by complainant and Rs.4,36,631/- as worked out by surveyor Bhatawadekar & Co. In fact when the quantity of damaged sugar and also rate for good sugar i.e. non-damaged sugar is on record there is no necessity to work out the loss by way of reprocessing method which is as done by the complainant. Hence we consider the loss of sugar at Rs.13,81,000/- i.e. total Rs.14,30,800/- (Rs.13,81,000 + 49,800) say Rs.14,30,000/- which the complainant is entitled to receive. Opponent Insurance Company has repudiated the claim on 23.2.2007 and hence from that date complainant is entitled to receive interest on Rs.14,30,000/-. Hence considering above facts and circumstances we pass the following order.
O R D E R
1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. Opponent No.1 to 5 are jointly and severally directed to pay to the complainant Rs.14,30,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 23.2.2007 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of order.
3. Opponents are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5000/- towards cost of complaint within a period of 30 days.
4. If the abovesaid amounts are not paid within the stipulated period the opponent company will have to pay interest @ 9% till the realisation of the entire amount.
5. Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.
K.B.Gawali, Mrs.Uma S.Bora D.N.Admane Member Member Presiding Judicial Member Mane