National Consumer Disputes Redressal
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs M/S. Raja Associates on 7 December, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2010 (Against the Order dated 22/12/2009 in Complaint No. 24/2008 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. "The New India Assurance Building"No.87,Mahatma Gandhi Road,Fort Mumbai 2. The Senior Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,No.13/2,1st Floor,2nd Main, Temple Road,Jayalakshmipuram Mumbai-570012 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. M/S. RAJA ASSOCIATES No.1331,First Floor Srinivasa Bhavan,Opp.Divya Roopa Kalyana Bhvan,Vijayanagar 1st Stage Mysore-570017 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant : MR. P.K. SETH For the Respondent : Mr.C.M.Angadi & Ms.Varsha Rana, advocates
Dated : 07 Dec 2015 ORDER
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 22.12.2009 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, 'the State Commission') in S.C. Case No. 24/2008 - M/s. Raja Associates Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. by which, complaint was partly allowed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent is a partnership firm running business of wholesale distribution of pharmaceuticals. Complainant obtained policy for his shop and godown for a period of one year from 8.8.2002 to 7.8.2003 from OP/appellant for a sum of Rs.12 lakhs, but later on, it was increased to Rs.40 lakhs. As per request of complainant/OP made an endorsement for bifurcating insurance risk coverage for shop and godown in the policy. On 4.7.2003, at 11.00 p.m., complainant got information about fire in the godown. He rushed to the spot. Intimated to fire fighting force and Police. Fire Brigade extinguished fire and Police authorities have drawn mahazar. It was further submitted that insurance policy was taken in the name of Bank which extended financial assistance and complainant submitted claim form along with documents to the Bank, who sent it to OP. Complainant also orally intimated OP about fire incident. OP deputed surveyor, who visited sport on 8.7.2003 and by letter dated 15.7.2003 called certain information which were supplied by complainant. Later on, by different letters, surveyor asked for additional particulars from complainant which were provided, but claim was not settled. Complainant filed complaint No. 16/2004 before State Commission in which Bank was also arrayed as OP No. 3 and learned State Commission by order dated 18.7.2005 while deciding complaint directed OP to decide claim within four weeks with liberty to the complainant to file fresh complaint if not satisfied with the compensation. It was further submitted that OP appointed another surveyor, who by notice dated 8.8.2005 called some information which had already been furnished earlier. It was further submitted that official of OP asked payment of Rs.3,20,000/- for submitting report which was not accepted by him. Later on, OP vide letter dated 5.9.2005 settled claim for Rs.6,65,000/- which was not accepted by complainant. It was further submitted that Bank took up the issue with IRDA, but nothing was done. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before State Commission. OP resisted complaint, admitted issuance of fire policy, but submitted that complainant did not furnish all requisite documents for settlement of claim. OP also denied allegations regarding demand by official of OP for settlement of claim. OP offered Rs.6,65,000/- to the complainant along with discharge voucher, but that was not signed by complainant. Denying any deficiency on their part, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties allowed complaint partly and directed OP to pay Rs.18,03,840/- from the date of claim till payment along with cost of Rs.10,000/- against which, this appeal has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
4. As there is delay of only 17 days in filing appeal, delay stands condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that as complainant failed to submit requisite documents, surveyor rightly assessed loss to the tune of Rs.6,65,000/-, but learned State Commission committed error in allowing compensation of Rs.18,03,840/- on the ground that second surveyor was appointed whereas, no second surveyor was appointed and committed error in discarding surveyor's report; hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order be modified. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, appeal be dismissed.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that inspite of repeated reminders respondent failed to submit requisite documents. Perusal of record reveals that by letter dated 28./2003, UCO bank supplied 18 documents to the appellant pertaining to period from 1.4.2002 to 31.3.2003 and from 1.4.2002 to 4.7.2003. Perusal of surveyors report dated 1.9.2005 reveals that some more documents were asked by surveyor from complainant which were not supplied by him and in absence of these documents loss of Rs.6,75,000/- was assessed. Complainant should have supplied these documents to the surveyor, but it appears that these documents were not material and documents supplied by UCO Bank were sufficient for ascertaining loss.
7. Perusal of record further reveals that earlier Mr. Raghuram S.R. was appointed as surveyor, who submitted incomplete report on 22.4.2004 observing 'Total loss' of stock and later on OP appointed another surveyor, Bhasker Associates who submitted report on 1.9.2005. No reason has been given by OP in appointing another surveyor and not entrusting the matter to earlier surveyor Raghuram S.R. who inspected site and perused documents supplied by UCO Bank. In such circumstances, arguments of learned Counsel for the appellant that second surveyor was not appointed is not tenable.
8. Surveyor in report dated 1.9.2005 observed that complainant claimed loss of Rs.39,40,198/- including tax, but as per mahazar recorded by Police, loss was to the tune of Rs.21,61,642/- excluding tax. Surveyor reduced Rs.7,35,000/- towards value of samples to doctors on the ground that this was claimed as expenses in profit and loss account for the year 2001-02 and no deduction of loss of sample made in the year 2002 to 2003. It is not necessary to give sample to doctor in each year and only because expenses regarding samples to doctor has not been claimed for the year 2002-03. Amount of Rs.7,35,000/- was not deductible from the loss assessed by Police in mahazar report and learned State Commission rightly observed that loss was to the tune of Rs.21,61,642/- as recorded in mahazar by Police. Surveyor further reduced profit to be earned from sale of stock without any basis because policy was not taken on the basis of deduction of profit from the insured goods. If deduction of profit is allowed, it would mean that complainant will again be purchasing stock and selling it without any profit which cannot be idea for taking policy. Insurance Company is liable to indemnify stocks destroyed and surveyor had no occasion to reduce profit from the destroyed stock. Learned State Commission after reducing tax and excess amount Rs.10,000/- rightly concluded that complainant was entitled for compensation for Rs.18,03,840/- after discussing surveyors report and other documents at length.
9. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and appeal is liable to be dismissed.
10. Consequently, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. Parties to bear their costs.
......................J K.S. CHAUDHARI PRESIDING MEMBER