National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Jindal Sons vs Cholamandalam, M/S. General Insurance ... on 30 March, 2026
%) NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONHDCF NEW DELHI JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON: 11/03/2026 JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 30/03/2026 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1441 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 22.07.2014 in Complaint No. 32/2009 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab) / With 1A/18076/2019, IA/9069/2014 (condonation of delay, condonation of delay) M/s Jindal Sons, Opp. Gurudev Nagar, PO near Aarti Cinema, Ludhiana, Punjab through Partner--Amit Jindal eee Appellant Versus (1) | Cholamandalam, M/s General Insurance Co. Ltd., Through its Branch Manager, Novelty Plaza, Bhai Bala Chowk, Ludhiana. (2) Cholamandalam, M/s General Insurance Co. Ltd., Through its Regional Claim Manager, Chandigarh, No. 2463-64, Second Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh. eae Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. Siddharth Mittal, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. N.K. Chauhan, Advocate ORDER
PER BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER
1. Appellant has filed the present appeal against order dated 22.07.2014 passed by State Commission, Punjab whereby State Commission dismissed the complaint by holding that the claim has rightly been settled at Rs. 2483745/- based on the survey report and also that the appellant was not entitled to maintain the complaint as it had already accepted the full and final settlement for his insurance claim as offered by the insurance company without protest and had duly signed the discharge voucher and and now it cannot be allowed to ask for more compensation.
2. Briefly stating the facts of the case, the appellant had taken a_ standard fire and special peril (SFSP) policy for SA of Rs. 55 lakhs and the same was valid on the date of incident i.e. 13.09.2008 when fire occurred in the godown premises of the appellant, which was immediately informed to the banker through which the policy -
was taken, and also to the insurance company and was also reported to the police.
Page 1 of 16Consequently, M/s Cunningham Lindsey Ltd. was appointed as surveyor to assess the loss. The appellant provided the necessary documents to the surveyor. However, the surveyor assessed and approved the claim only for Rs.24,83,745/- as against the claim of Rs.40,03,000/-. Appellant signed the discharge voucher dated 20.01.2009 as full and final settlement, under protest. As respondents had not honored or approved the entire claim of the appellant, appellant-complainant filed consumer complaint no. 32 of 2009 before the State Commission, Punjab. State Commission vide its impugned order dated 22.07.2014 dismissed the consumer complaint, relevant portion of which is reproduced below:
'8. On careful examination of submission of counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, the only point in dispute, which emerges between the parties is whether the complainant received the settlement of claim towards full and final settlement for a sum of Rs.24,83,745/-, vide copy of Loss Voucher Annexure C-24 on the record. The submission of the opposite parties before us is that the surveyor is appointed on the basis of statute and his report is admissible u/s 64 UM (2) of the Insurance Act. He is an independent institution and he has assessed the loss by fire by taking into account the entire circumstances to the extent of Rs.24,83,745/-. The complainant received this amount without any protest towards full and final settlement and discharge of his claim. We find that Annexure C-24 is the most important document on the record. The report of the surveyor carries weightage on the record. The report of surveyor can be ignored only when there is compelling evidence to the contrary on the record. The submission of the opposite parties that many of the items of the complainant, store in the godown, were out of use and were obsolete in the market and hence, value was assessed accordingly by the surveyor. We find that when the complainant received the voucher for the sum of Rs.24,83,745/- towards full and final settlement of the insurance claim and the complainant raised no protest thereto whatsoever. The complainant has not received this amount under protest despite the fact that it is a business savvy person. We hold that it is evident from perusal of
- Ex.C-24 that the complainant has received this amount towards full and final settlement and in discharge of the insurance claim. The counsel for the complainant submitted before us that discharge voucher Annexure C-24 is not a valid document and it would not be binding on the complainant. He relied upon law laid down in "New India | Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Laxmi International Exports", lV (2012) PCJ- 810 (NC);
"Shankar Woollen Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Ins. Co. Ltd.", IV (2012) CPJ-733 (NC); and "Nirmal Singh Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.", lV (2012) CP.J-641 (NC).
9. We have considered the above authorities. Undoubtedly, it was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that if the consent of the party is obtained under coercion and is not a free consent, then the discharge voucher may not bind the parties. Herein, it was for the complainant to prove that his consent was taken by exercising coercion upon him. There is no substance on the record to substantiate it. Since, we have not come across any iota of evidence on record that the consent of the complainant was taken on the discharge voucher Annexure C-24 by exercising any coercion upon him, hence, the cited authorities would not help the complainant due to the above referred factual distinction drawn by us. Mere allegation is not proof of any fact. The complainant also referred to law laid down in "Banaras Beads Ltd. &Ors. Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.", 2005/3) CLT-153 (NC), wherein it was held that the surveyor assessed the loss only of Rs.4.80 lacs, whereas he has ignored the computerized stock statement for the godown, where the fire took place. It was held in the above referred authority that the surveyor report is not binding. We find that there is no substantial evidence to the contrary on the record led by the complainant. The surveyor assessed the loss, keeping in view the market value of the goods. The surveyor primarily found that many of the items stored in the godown were out of Page 2 of 16 fashion being obsolete with little market value and they were not of much substantial value. The Apex Court in case "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Kumar", (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases-787 held that the object and intendment of report of licensed surveyor/loss assessor should be taken and such a report is pre-requisite for settlement of the claim, although, it is not conclusive unless contrary is established by evidence on the record.
10. On careful appraisal of above referred authorities and the pleadings as well as evidence of the parties, we find that the Hon'ble National Commission held in "Suryachem Industries Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd." | (2007) CPJ-278 (NC) that the surveyor report, being an important document, has to be given due weightage, unless rebutted by some cogent evidence on the record. We find that the complainant is an educated person and business savvy person, who is dealing in business of large magnitude like export and import. It is not expected from the complainant to sign the discharge voucher without understanding its contents. The Apex Court held in case "M/s Grasim Industries Ltd. & Anr. Vs M/s Aggarwal Steels", 2010 (6) RCR (Civil)-
17 that whenever the document is signed by the parties, there is presumption, unless there is proof to the contrary or of fraud, that he has read his document properly. Presumption inheres in inferring approval in case of businessmen, as they are prudent people and would not sign it like way. On the basis of law laid down by the Apex Court (supra) that the report of the surveyor is to be given due weightage and cannot be ignored unless there are contrary, compelling and cogent reasons and compelling evidence on record. We conclude that the complainant, who is savvy businessman, is not supposed to sign the discharge voucher Annexure C- 24 towards full and final settlement of his claim for an amount of Rs.24,83,745/- on 20.01.2009. We find that the complainant has not raised any protest and rather accepted it towards full and final discharge of his claim. It is only after many days that the complainant wrote another letter to the opposite parties, claiming higher amount of the claim by taking somersault. Why the complainant has not received the settlement amount under protest, has not been explained to us by the counsel for the complainant before us. We hold that the claim of the complainant has been voluntarily discharged by him against receipt of the amount of Rs.24,84,745/- towards full and final settlement of the insurance claim. We, thus, find no substance in the subsequent letter of the complainant that this amount of the claim was inadequate and he received it under protest. Oral evidence is excluded by documentary evidence on the record and the contention of the complainant stands belied by the discharge voucher Annexure C-24. Consequently, we observe that the complainant has received the amount of Rs.24,83,745/- towards full and final settlement in discharge of the claim from the opposite parties on 20.01.2009. The party, who is aggrieved with this inadequate settlement of claim is not supposed to receive it towards full and final settlement and would raise his protest at the time of its receipt. Consequently, the submission of the complainant on this count is rejected. Similarly, there is no substance on the record to award any compensation of Rs.5 lacs on account of loss of business and Rs. 2 lacs on account of mental harassment and Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant and this relief is also declined to him.
11. In the light of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint filed by the complainant and the same is hereby dismissed. Parties are left-to bear their own costs.
12. Arguments in this complaint were heard on 17.07.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties."
3. Being aggrieved with the above order of the State Commission, complainant/appellant filed the present appeal. It is the first and foremost contention of learned counsel for the appellant that State Commission erred in dismissing the complaint and it failed to appreciate the fact that the protest letter was written by Page 3 of 16 them within a week of signing the discharge voucher i.e. on 27.01.2009. Discharge voucher should not have been considered as a conclusive evidence for determining the voluntary acceptance of the full and final settlement of appellant's insurance claim. It is further argued that this Commission in a large number of cases has held that mere execution of discharge voucher and acceptance of insurance claim does not estoppel the insured from making further claim. Undue influence and coercion created by the respondent insurance company created a precarious situation which compelled the appellant to accept whatever was being offered to save their already dead business. The amount was received under protest reserving their right to recover the balance amount and that the discharge voucher was obtained under coercion and duress. Immediately after signing the discharge voucher dated 20.01.2009, appellant sent a protest letter dated 27.01.2009 stating that their claim was for Rs. 40,03,000/ but they received only Rs. 24,84,745/- and they reserve their right to recover the balance amount and that the discharge voucher was obtained under coercion and duress. Appellant has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton and General Mills (1999) 6 SCC 400, wherein it is held that, "4. The mere execution of the discharge voucher would not always deprive the consumer from preferring daim with respect to the deficiency in service or consequential benefits arising out of the amount paid in default of the service rendered. Despite execution of the discharge voucher, the consumer may be in a position to satisfy the Tribunal or the Commission under the Act that such discharge voucher or receipt had been obtained from him under the circumstances which can be termed as fraudulent or exercise of undue influence or by mis-representation.or the like. If in a given case the consumer satisfies the authority under the Act that the discharge voucher was obtained by fraud, mis-representation, under Influence or the like, coercive bargaining compelled by circumstances, the authority before whom the complaint Is made would be justified In granting appropriate relief ."
3.1. Further, appellant has quoted the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New India. Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Kumar, (2009) 7 SCC 787 wherein it has very clearly been stated that the surveyor's report is not the last and final word, "...... although the assessment of loss by the approved surveyor is a pre-requisite for payment or settlement of claim of twenty thousand rupees or more by insurer, but surveyor's report is not the last and final word. It is not that sacrosanct Page 4 of 16 that it cannot be departed from; it is not conclusive. The approved surveyor's report may be basis or foundation for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured but surely such report is neither binding upon the insurer nor insured."
4. The respondent-insurer, on the other hand, has supported the order of the State Commission and further contended that the State Commission has rightly observed that the signing of the discharge voucher was preceded with detailed correspondence and discussions with the insured and even the draft assessment was duly shared with the insured by the surveyor. The surveyor has prepared detailed survey report and assessment therein after taking into account the replies to the queries and informations and documents submitted therewith. The insured was therefore fully aware of the basis of the assessment including all the deductions and has therefore fully consciously and after duly weighing the merit of the settlement as proposed by the insurer, accepted the amount of Rs. 2484745/- and has duly discharged the insurer by signing the discharge voucher. In that scenario, the State Commission has rightly held that the complainant can not in law, without establishing any coercion or fraud or misrepresentation in the offer of settlement made by the insurer, be allowed to reagitate the issue for which it stands estopped on account of discharge obtained by the insurer. Reliance is placed on the decisions relied upon by the State Commission. On merit also, it is submitted that the Survey report including the assessment of loss therein is not only a statutory report and hence carrying a significant evidentiary value which cannot be brushed aside without any strong contrary evidence brought on record by the complainant, the assessment in the present Survey Report of M/s Lindsey Cunningham & Co, is very well-founded and such assessment, apart from the insistence of the insured on the eligibility for the claim as was originally made, has not meaningfully been dislodged by the complainant-appellant. The deduction of 17.5% of the invoice value for Perry items, the deduction on account of slow-moving or obsolete items and other deductions as made by the Surveyor are on the basis of material in his possession, after due correspondence and discussion with the insured and after obtaining market inputs. The Claim note of fire loss prepared by the respondent insurance company (Annexure R-2) (page 171 to 173 of the complaint file) is reproduced below:
Page 5 of 16AM MS'GENERAAL INSURANCE CO, LTD.
CLAIM. NOTE:FIRE LOSS CHANDIGARILR.O:
GHOLAMANDAL.
~ 02:01:2009 Claim No, | PSP-001838 POLICYOETAILS _ ™ ~ 'PolicyNO. EPP-00026486-000-01. End. No. PSP-00026486-002 -01 & 003-01
-fnsured Mis Jindal Sons, Plot No. 2, sueet no, 1, Jeavan Preet Nagar, Ludhiana "Policy PeriodIType_| Enterprise Package Policy f 14.03.07 to 13.03.08 __ __--- Coverage | Fire and special Peril Policy.
"insured Property 'Stock (warehouse of sanitary goods) . Total Sum Insured: Rs. §5,00.000' Coinsurance Oelails nil | CLAIMS DETAILS Cec Confined - - " 4 Date of Loss: 113.9.2008 atabout t2a0hrs. a 1 Cause of Loss "A Spark from exhaust of DG set or from electnc point is the likely cause of a __| fire 2 _ _ Surveyor. Mis Cunningham Lindsey Intemational Pvi: Ltd.
PE Surveyor OS "Netloss assessed for Rs: 24,84.1 53 /- (salvage value adjusted) recommendation _. - .
| Nature of toss Fire caused severe damage to the stock of sanitary items like PVC & boarders, Motif, Mirrors etc ..
glass Vanity units, glass bowls, countertops, wash basins, wail hangings. toilet. seats, men urinals,, steel sinks, Bath tubs, steam bath units, liles,.
r Supparting Documents Survey report along with documents and Photographs Any: Breach of No 'Warranty or Policy : Condition.
Clause: Agreed bank clause, earthquake (Fire ang shock):
On perusal of the claim file we observe ag undor:
Back. Ground:. The insured IWS Jindal Sons are engaged: in the business of buying & setling of 'local, branded & imported Sanitary items, Risk. Premises: Location of the risk premises is 3° floor of the insured's building at plot: no. 2, street no. %, Jeevan Preet, Nagar, Near Firozpur Road. Octroi: post. Ludhiana.. The risk premises were found to ba. duilt of first class construction.Main showroom built up of RCC framed construction having pillars . beams and roof slab of RCC and-wails of burnt: bricks sel in cement mortar, Occurrence, of loss: Mr. Vidya Bhushan (working as. insyred's accounts: manager) heard passer bys noise about flames emanating fiom third:floor of the insured's warehouse building. He alongwith his employees noticed that. the third flocr & stock of sanilary items tying thereat was completely, engulfed into fire: They informed the partners of the.firm Mr. Amit & Anoop Jindal. The fire brigade was immediately called which reactied the site immediately and fire could: be
2.
controtted within next 3.5 hours.
Page 6 of 16Ail the sanitary items lying at 3° floor tike PVC & glass Vanity units, glass bowls, counténops, wz basins, wall hangings, toitet seats, men urinals, Stee! sinks, Gath tubs, steam bath units, és, boarders, Motif, Mirrors. elc .got completely burntimelted & heat affected.
Inspection, of loss:Mis Gunningham Lindsay international Pvt. Ltd, was deputed in for inspection of loss immediately after loss was reported on 43.9.2008.. The loss was Surveyed immediately and physical verfication of items was carried out in presence of insured to arrive at the joint quantification of items damaged. The various possible causes of the loss were examined but spark either from electric points or from exhaust éf OG set was observed to be most probable cause of fire.
Nature and extent of loss:
The following sanitary items were found bumt, melted, heat-broken'cracked and damaged :-
1) PVG, woeden and glass Vanity units with countertop ceramic basins (PVC/wooden cabinel with 2 number of drawers and bench top unitceramic: basin}, alf imported make 'White Rorse'
2) Glass wash basin 'bowls', imported $) Parryware make countertopipedestalibelow counter wash basins, wall hangiag toilet seats, sent covers.
sistems & other accessuvies, fittings etc. :
$) Rassi make wash basins, toilet scats, accessories, fittings etc. §) Whitehurse make men urinals §} Steel sinks
7) Bath tubs and steam bath aniis
8) Tiles, Borders, Motif - make Kazaria, imported and local make
9) Mirrors make JS * Scope of coverage: The loss was found to be genuine & accidental in nature which is well covered under preview of the poiicy: No any misrepresentation or concealment of facis. was noticed as confirmed by the surveyors.
Adequacy of insurance. Since. the sum insured is adequate hence under insurance will nol be applicabie.
lnsured's elaim: The Insured lodged: their claim bit! amounting to Rs._ 4,003,527 against 'burnt stock, a Assessment of loss :
Ay On basis of physical verification of damaged and safe stock & various documonts the surveyors have computed the liabifity as under:
Gross Loss assessed . Rs. 2,844,366 Less: Obsolescence. Rs, 350.363 Loss Assessed Rs. 2,491,002 Less salvage Rs, 24,910.
Net Loss adjusted Rs. 2,466,092 Page 7 of 16 { Ado'Loss minivitzation, experises Rs: $3400.
| Add: 1% of debris. "removal! Rs. 24,86 ' "Adjusted toss Rs'2,484.198 "Less Excess "Rs; 10,000"
Survey fee: may Bé processes atyourend: MA 4,233 J Ww. fevres, ee Ciinnang, ew Lickers, I "(Recommended By: t Schiots AEE Claims:
A ee
5. The surveyor observed in its report that part of the stocks which got burnt or damaged were slow-moving/out of demand in the market and therefore, their value at the time of damage had reduced extensively. The surveyor vide its final report dated 31.12.2008 assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.24,83,745/- which was accepted by the complainant through voucher dated 20.01.2009 in. full and final settlement of the claim. After signing the discharge voucher, the insured is estopped from subsequently agitating the matter unless the absence of free consent is established on record, which has not been done. In order to get undue and unjustified further claim of Rs.15,19,255/- over and above the amount assessed and received to the sum of Rs.24,83,745/-, the complaint is filed. The surveyor gave its final report on 31.12.2008. Surveyor found that some of the material destroyed in fire was in fact saleable at a very low price only, as it was out of demand in the market being obsolete stock. Some of the goods gutted in the fire had already stopped being manufactured by M/s Parryware Roca Pvt. Ltd. and hence their value was minimal in the market. The goods could not be assessed at the anticipated sale price or at the cost price, but at the value at the time of actual loss caused to the complainant. Hence, the claim was payable only as per the terms and conditions of policy and not on the basis of estimates submitted by the complainant. Surveyor's statutory report under section 64 UM of the Insurance Act cannot be brushed aside lightly. It is an independent institution and it has assessed the loss, by taking into account the entire circumstances, at Rs.24,83,745/-. It is also the submission of the respondent Page 8 of 16 insurance company that when they issued the voucher for the sum of Rs.24,83,745/-
towards full and final settlement of the insurance claim, no protest whatsoever was raised by the appellant-complainant. There is no material on record to substantiate that the consent of the appellant was obtained under coercion and is not a free consent. It is strongly urged that there is no evidence at all of any misrepresentation, fraud or coercion in offer of settlement at Rs. 2483745/- by the insurer and wilful acceptance thereof by signing the discharge voucher by the complainant. Insurer relied on the judgment of this Commission in the case of Suryachem Industries Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd." | (2007) CPJ-278 (NC) wherein it is held that the surveyor report, being a statutory independent report, is a significant piece of evidence and has to be given due weightage, unless rebutted by some cogent evidence on the record. The Discharge voucher was signed by the complainant and it is not expected that they could have signed it without understanding its contents.
The claim of the appellant insured was rightly settled keeping in view the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as the report of the surveyor and basis of valuation therein. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent insurer as the claim has been rightly released as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the report of the surveyor.
6. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have carefully gone through the record. Written submissions have also been filed by the appellant as well as respondents which also are perused. During the course of hearing, Mr. Mittal, on behalf of the appellant has strongly contended that the State Commission has made serious error of law in non-suiting the complainant merely on the ground of signing of the discharge voucher, which was not only under protest, but a detailed protest was 'also raised within a week. The inherent undue influence and coercion in offer of part-settlement of a claim, wherein, the insured is obliged to choose between (a) getting a breathing space by way of receiving part claim amount for keeping the already distressed business somehow floating and (b) that of allowing itself the full entitlement and agitating the rightful claim by rejecting the settlement offer, it cannot and should not have been overlooked by the State Commission. Further, on merit it has been stated that the surveyor's report arbitrarily assesses the loss at only nearly 60% of the actual loss suffered, which was duly inventorized. Drawing our attention to pages 130, 137 and 140 of the file, it was contended that no items of stock were either slow-moving or obsolete or required to be valued at a figure lower than what Page 9 of 16 was claimed on the basis of the purchase/sale invoices, which rates and quantity stood duly established. Therefore, the learned counsel urged for allowing the appeal and for granting further claim amount of Rs.15,19,255/- with interest. On the other hand, Mr. Chauhan has put strong reliance on the order of the State Commission and on the decisions relied upon therein to contend that the State Commission has rightly held that no circumstance of undue influence, fraud or coercion etc. is established by the complainant to establish the absence of free consent in signing of discharge voucher. Further, reading from the survey report, it has been contended that the well-founded and well-reasoned survey report cannot be brushed aside, and when insurer has already offered settlement based on survey report no deficiency in insurer's service can be alleged or found, particularly so, when the complainant has also signed the discharge voucher.
7. We have perused the entire material on record. Having heard the counsels, . we do not find any error of fact or of law in the appreciation of evidence by or in the conclusion drawn by the State Commission. We agree with the State Commission and with the learned counsel for the insurer that the discharge voucher signed by the insured, in the background of what communications had transpired between the surveyor and the insured, and after considering the merit of the claim for further amount in light of the observations in the survey report, is purely voluntary and is with due application of mind and is completely uninfluenced by any misrepresentation or fraud or coercion from the insurer. Further, there is no credible evidence brought on record either before the State Commission or before us to establish such factors or dimensions of absence of 'free consent and absence of conscious and volitional signing of the discharge voucher. Moreover, we also have perused the claim as made by the insured, the detailed correspondence which ensued between the complainant and the Surveyor and comments of the Surveyor and assessment forming part of the Survey Report. The revised claim, the communication of the insured dated 17.12.2008 and the surveyor's letter dated 18.12.2008 along with the observations of the Surveyor on the basis of assessment are reproduced below:
Page 10 of 16ANNEXURE A-9 JINDAL SONS IMPORTERS & EXPORTERS DETAILS OF CLAIM (REVISED) PRODUCT AMOUNT Vanities 660009.00 Farryware 669304.00 Bath tubes 603559.00 Glass bowls 448065.00 Tiles & borders 1208999.00 Misclanious 231256.00 Raasi 128935.00 Fire Brigade charges ' 3400.00 Labour on removai of debris 50000.00 Rs. Four Lac Three Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Seven Thursday, December 18, 2008 9.54 AM From: Anil Dhingra <anil - dhingra @cunninghamlindsey.net> To "Jindal Sons" <Jindal_sons2k2@ yahoo.com> Cc: Kumar [email protected], "sherrymakkar"
Dear Mr. Jindal, Draft assessment was sent you to have your views on the obsolescence (out of demand products) etc. which you have preferred to substentiate by way of a letter of the Area Sales head of the manufacturers. Please Recall, our local office have been asking you to substantiate the prices of these models by way of the prevailing DP Lists when these products were in regular demand and sold to the authorized dealers during our various meetings with last one held in presence of the insurers.
We would therefore appreciate if the DP lists are also arranged through the area sales Head at the earlies to consider the same in the assessment.
Besides we have shared our observation and the market inputs with you and we confirm that are reasonably convinced with the market information in respect of the put of demand aspect of these articles, as is also conveyed to the company representative.Page 11 of 16
Jindal Sons to Rajesh, me Show details:2.18 AM (1hour ago) 17.12.2008 .
Dear Mr. Rajesh Arora, We regret to bring to your kind notice that despite your assurances, our insurance claim has not been settled till date. We have a strong feeling that the surveyors are harassing us in collusion with the insurers or for some ulterior motive. Despite verifying each and every item from the segregated fire debris, cross checking the same with the relevant documentary evidences and verifying the facts from the suppliers the draft assessment report sent to us is nothing short of resorting to pressure tactics only with an aim to squeeze us. We doubt 'integrity and competence of your surveyors who are not considering facts while making an assessment of loss. We are enclosing herewith scanned copy of letter received from M/s Parryware Rocco Private Limited conforming marketability of products destroyed in fire. On perusai of contents of the letter your goodself will observe that the surveyors are ignoring the facts just to harass us.
We once again request your good office to look into the matter personally so that our claim is not delayed anymore. Please note that the insurers will be responsible to pay us LOSS ASSESSMENT/ADJUSTMENT VERIFICATION The Insured preferred their claim under seven sub heads, categorized by brand or type of sanitary item. We have verified each sub head separately, as under :-
|) Vanity sets : This is imported and quantities assessed jointly with the Insured. The Insured preferred their claim on present basic procurement rate of damaged items alongwith actual rate of exchange as on date of reinstatement, as they restored similar models after fire. We have taken cognizance of same and assessed accordingly. However, assessable value considered by custom authorities has not been allowed. The loss has been assessed as per insured practice of 1% loading to arrive at the assessable value.Page 12 of 16
2) 3}
4)
5)
6)
2) Parryware : The Insured preferred their claim on recent procurement invoices from a locat dealer. Some rates in few invoices were found inconsistent when compared to present MRP. Further, some items were not found appearing in these lists. We accordingly requested the Insured to corroborate claimed rates by Dealer Price Lists for non appearing items, prevailing them. However, the Insured expressed inability to provide the same and more so these were not available. We worked out a sample price differential of: claimed amount @ 29.3% from usual prevalent market procurement rates by any retailer and discussed same with the Insured in presence of Insurers. The Insured expressed that the sample calculation cannot be accepted as the basis, being very smal! value. After at length deliberations an overall adjustment of 17.5% across all Parryware items was agreed.
Bath Tubs : The Insured preferred their claim on recent procurement invoices of a local dealer for quantities assessed jointly with us. Being a local, non branded and non standard item,-we applied similar adjustment of 17.5% determined under Parryware. For imported items claimed under this head, the Insured preferred their claim on landed procurement cost of damaged items with rate of exchange as on date of loss except for 'mirrors-203 A' that are claimed on present basic procurement rate alongwith actual rate of exchange as on date of reinstatement, as they restored it after fire. Accordingly assessed by us.
Glass Bowls ; This is imported and quantities assessed jointly with the insured, the Insured preferred their claim on landed procurement cost alongwith rate of exchange as on date of loss. Accordingly assessed by us.
Miscetlaneous ; These are locally purchased PVC based sanitary items which have been claimed on procurement cost afd assessed accordingly. However, for Jindat bath appliances, being an interstate purchase, barrier receipt is not provided. In absence of same, it is not being considered.
Tiles, Borders and Mortif : These are locally purchased branded (tiles) and non branded (borders, mortif) items and have been claimed on procurement cost. However, some rates claimed were found inconsistent and on a higher side compared to MRP printed on boxes of tiles. So we had requested the Insured to corroborate claimed amount through Dealers Price Lists for branded items. However, the Insured did not provide same. So we applied similar adjustment of 17.5% determined under Parryware and assessed the loss. , Rassi : No bill for this item is provided, hence not considered.
Page 13 of 16TYPED COPY OF PAGE 13 OF THE SURVEY REPORT FI NO. 3834 OF 2025.
DETAILS OF CLAIM PRODUCT VANATIES PARRYWARE BATH TUBS GLASS BOWLS TILES, BORDERS MISC RASSI Firc Brigade Charges Labour on Removal of Debris @\% TOTAL Thirty seven lac fifty eight thousand ninty six only ASSESSMENT SUMMARY Imported Items Amount Claimed Glass Bowls 448,065 Bath Tubs 27,446 Vanalics 660,009 Total 1,135,520 Indigenous Items Amount Claimed Bath Tubs 576,113 -
Tiles Border 963,220 'Parryware 669,304 Misccllancous 242,366 Total 2,451,003 Gross Loss Assessed Less: Obsolescence Loss Assessed Less: Salvage Net Loss Assessed Less: Undeinsurance Add: Loss minimisation expenses Add: 1% of debris removal Adjust Loss Less: Excess Net Adjusted Loss Page 14 of 16 AMOUNT 660009 669304 603559 448065 963568 231256 128935 3400 50000 3758096 Gross Loss Assessed 154,621 41,048 553,897 749,566 Gross Loss Assessed 427530 1054801 519746 89723 2091800 2,841,366 350,363 -
2,491,002 24.910 2,466,092 3400 24661 2,494,153 10,000 2,484,153 Pages of Supp. Bills LED ON 07.02,2025 VIDE DIARY 23 22 Obsolescence Loss Assessed 154,621 41,048 553,897 749,566 Obsolescence Loss Assessed 74,818 184,590 90,956 352,712 $70,210 428,790 $9,723 1,741,436
8. As can be seen, the surveyor has meticulously and with due application of mind considered the representations logically and proceeded to assess the loss under the heads of imported and indigenous items of stocks. It appears that the detailed joint inventory, as seen form the detailed annexures of inventories forming part of the survey report on record, was prepared and on that basis the insured originally claimed loss of Rs. 3759096/ which was later revised to Rs. 4003527/-. The deduction on account of non-moving or obsolete stocks is only Rs.3,50,363/- which also appears, in view of overall circumstances, and in light of inability of the insured to provide the Price List at the time of purchase as per letter dated 18.12.2008, to be reasonable and realistic and not arbitrary, unreasonable or baseless. It is also noted by us that as against the sample price differential of nearly 29% in Parryware items, after due discussion, the reduction of only 17.5% has been applied by the Surveyor primarily due to failure of the insured in providing the Dealer Price List to corroborate the rates as claimed. Similar is the case with the items under the head Tiles Borders and Motifs and Bathtubs for which basis of deduction is explained and stated to be after discussion with the insured. The Surveyor, in few of the items like Imported Bath Tubs and Tiles Border, arrived at the figure of assessment, before applying obsolescence, to a figure higher than what was claimed. The Rassi items have been excluded for the reason that the relevant supporting bills were not provided. Thus we have nothing cogent and substantial on record to conclude that the there is non-application of mind, or bias or arbitrariness in the observations of the surveyor. The expert statutory surveyor's opinion, based on physical visit and examination of the stock and physical condition of the premises and stocks, cannot be baldly castigated or brushed aside without any positive evidence of error or arbitrariness therein. Overall, the settlement at Rs.24,83,745/- as offered by the insurer on the basis of a well-founded assessment in the survey report, appears to have been voluntarily accepted by the insured for it being a fair assessment of loss, which also appears to us to be so, by signing the discharge voucher. Even in the complaint, no specific case as to how each of the itemised assessments of the surveyor as per above table, so as to arrive at assessment at Rs.24,83,745/- as against claim of Rs.40,03,000/-, is wrong, has been made out. While we agree with the State Commission that the signing of discharge voucher is voluntary and that there is no evidence of coercion or misrepresentation or fraud on record, we equally positively further find that otherwise also the assessment of loss Page 15 of 16 (» in the survey report is unimpeachable, and therefore also, there was neither any valid ground for the insured to have any surviving grievance after accepting the settlement amount as supported by the survey report as offered and accepted, nor is there any evidence on record to otherwise conclude that the discharge dated 20.02.2009 was without free consent or under the influence of any vitiating factor. In the conclusion, we find no ground or reason to interfere with the State Commission's order.
- 9. Appeal is dismissed.
aj/-
( A.P. SAHI, J.
PRESIDENT Page 16 of 16