State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sks Ispat & Power Limited vs Chairman Cum Managing Director & Others on 16 May, 2014
1CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Complaint Case No.12/04
Instituted on : 09.02.2012
SKS Ispat & Power Limited,
Having Its Factory at 18th Milestone,
Bilaspur Road, Village - Siltara, Raipur (C.G.)
Acting Through its authorized Signatory
Shri B.B. Shrivastava S/o Awadh Bihari Shrivastava,
Aged about 58 years, resident of V.I.P. Karishma Apartment,
Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.). ... Complainant.
Vs.
1. Chairman Cum Managing Director,
Head Office,
National Insurance Company Limited,
3 Middleton Street, Kolkata - 700 071
2. Deputy General Manager,
Mumbai Regional Office - II,
National Insurance Company Limited,
4th Floor, Sterling Cinema Building,
65, Murzban Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (M.H.).
3. Senior Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office - II,
National Insurance Company Limited,
1st Floor, Sterling Cinema Building,
65 - Murzban Road, Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 (M.H.) ... Opposite Parties
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -
Shri Nikhil Agrawal, for complainant.
Shri Vinod Deshmukh, for opposite parties.
// 2 //
ORDER
Dated : 16/05/2014 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties for seeking direction to the opposite parties : (a) to indemnify complainant's loss of the insured item to the extent of Rs.62,32,950/- (Rupees Sixty Two Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty Only) (b) to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the above amount from the date of loss to the date of payment (c) to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) towards mental, physical and financial loss (d) saddle the cost of litigation expenses, lawyer's fees on the opposite parties for instituting the instant complaint and approaching before this Commission and (e) grant any other relief, which this Hon'ble Commission deems fit and just under the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts of the complaint as per the complainant are : that the complainant is a public limited company having its registered office at 501-B, 5th Floor, Elegant Business Park, J.B. Nagar, Andheri - Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai and Factory at the above mentioned address. The complainant deals in manufacturing, sale and purchase of various products like Sponge Iron, Ingot, Billets, Rolled products, Ferrous Alloys, Power etc. The Opposite Parties are one of the oldest Insurance Company in India and O.P.No.1 is the head office of the // 3 // Company which handles and manages business of whole of India and also at the Overseas. The O.P. No.2 is the Regional Head Office - II, which also includes office of O.P.No.3 and O.P.No.3 is the Senior Divisional Manager, Mumbai, D.O.II, who provided service to complainant. The complainant is one of the premium, loyal and valued customer of the O.P.No.3 from past many years and annually pay premium (approx) about Rs.40 lakhs through number of general insurance policies from the O.P.No.3. The complainant obtained insurance policy under Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy for "Stock of Coal and Iron Ore" for the security from Spontaneous Combustion and Earthquake (Fire and Shock) for the sum of Rs.9,00,00,000/- from the O.P.No.3 National Insurance Company Raipur and the policy No. is 268200/11/10/3300000081 for the period from 14.05.2010 to 13.05.2011. The complainant also took another insurance policy from New India Assurance Company Limited for the same stock for sum insured Rs.10,00,0000/- and the policy No. is 450300/11/09/11/00000336 for the period from 08.08.2009 to 07.08.2010. On 26.05.2010, Security Incharge Mr. D.D. Singh of Complainant's factory at about 6.00 P.M. observed flames of fire in the coal stake of coal stored at outside shed of plant. All the concerned persons present at the place of incident took all their best efforts to control fire and minimize the loss but even then they could not be able to stop fire which resulted in loss of two stakes of Coal (B grade) and // 4 // intimation of the same was given to O.P.No.3 on the same day. The O.P.No.3 upon receiving aforesaid intimation from complainant deputed a Preliminary Surveyor Mr. H. Chitalia, who was also duly appointed by New India Assurance Company Limited, who after thorough inspection and upon receiving all the mandatory documents from complainant submitted his report accepting the loss of two stakes of coal (B grade), total quality about 3,000 metric tons due to Spontaneous Combustion. In due course of time Mr. S.R. Das - Final Surveyor deputed by O.P.No.3 also surveyed the place of incident and after procuring all the required documents from the complainant submitted his Final Survey Report to O.P.No.3. In the meantime all the relevant papers and documents, as required by the Preliminary Surveyor Mr. H. Chitalia and Final Surveyor Mr. S.R. Das were delivered in time for processing and settling the claim. The complainant's net loss of coal (B grade) as assessed by Preliminary Surveyor Mr. H. Chitalia and also affirmed by complainant due to spontaneous combustion is 3,000 metric ton, out of which the OPs as per their proportion of sum insured, are liable to pay and compensate complainant for 1350 metric tons and the value of same as per the then market price is Rs.4,617/- is Rs.62,32,950/- (Rs. Sixty Two Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty Only). Thus, the OPs are jointly and severally liable to compensate Rs.62,32,950/- to the complainant. That to much surprise and utter shock for complainant // 5 // and for the reasons best known to the OPs, O.P.No.3 on 29.03.2011 sent a letter to the complainant stating that complainant's aforesaid case is being closed as "Claim withdrawn by insured. The act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in services on its part and as such the complainant is consumer within the purview of Section 2(1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant filed complaint against the OPs before this Commission.
3. The OPs in their written statement pleaded that the complainant did not inform the OPs immediately regarding the incident. Letter bears the date of 26.05.2010, but no intimation was sent on 26.05.2010. Shri Hitesh Chitalia was appointed as Surveyor for only giving Status Survey Report and Shri S.R. Das was appointed as Surveyor by the OPs for assessment of loss. Shri S.R. Das, Surveyor demanded relevant documents from the complainant, but the complainant did not submit such documents before Shri S.R. Das, Surveyor. Shri S.R. Das, Surveyor, wrote letters several time to the complainant but the complainant failed to submit documents before him and therefore, the Insurance Company proceeded against the complainant as no claim and did not commit any deficiency in service, hence the complainant is not entitled for any compensation from the OPs and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. Shri Nikhil Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that the complainant had obtained policy No. // 6 // 268200/11/10/3300000081 from the National Insurance Company, which was effective for the period from 14.05.2010 to 13.05.2011 and also obtained insurance policy No. 450300/11/09/11/00000336 for the period from 08.08.2009 to 07.08.2010 from the New India Assurance Company Limited, which was effective from 08.08.2009 to 07.08.2010. He further argued that on 26.05.2010 at about 6.00 P.M. Security Incharge of complainant's factory Mr. D. D. Singh observed flames of fire in the Coal stake of coal stored at outside shed of plant and the matter was immediately reported to the complainant and the employee of the complainant company tried to minimize the fire and all efforts to control the fire has been made by the complainant, but could not stop the fire and due to fire two stakes of coal (B grade) was burnt . The matter was reported to the Insurance Company and Mr. Hitesh Chitalia, was appointed as Surveyor by the New India Assurance Company Limited which was also consented by the National Insurance Company Limited and Shri Hitesh Chitalia, visited the premises of the complainant and he found that near about 3,000 metric tons of coal (B grade) was lost due to spontaneous combustion . The report was accepted by the complainant. The Surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company, therefore, the Survey Report submitted by Shri Hitesh Chitalia is binding upon the Insurance Company hence the complainant is entitled for compensation for 3,000 metric tons of coal @ 4,617/- per metric ton and the total loss is Rs.62,32,950/-. Shri Nikhil // 7 // Agarawal, further argued that the complainant provided all relevant documents to the Surveyor, Shri S.R. Das, but Shri S.R. Das could not assess the loss suffered by the complainant in proper way and the Insurance Company wrongly declared the case of the complainant as no claim case. The complainant is entitled for getting compensation as mentioned in relief clause of the complaint. He placed reliance on M/s Tanda Textiles and Processing Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others (Original Petition No.257 of 1998) decided 09.02.2007 by Hon'ble National Commission.
5. Shri Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the OPs (Insurance Company) argued that the complaint has not been filed by a competent authority, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. He further argued that the complainant took insurance policy from the National Insurance Company and The New India Assurance Company Limited and for the same stock and complaints filed for the same cause of action. One complaint case is against the New India Assurance Company Limited and another complaint case is against the National Insurance Company Limited. In both the complaint cases, the complainant prayed for granting compensation for the same incident. For the same cause of action, two separate complaints cannot not be filed. If the single complaint is filed for the incident take place, the total value of the prayed amount is more than Rs.1 crore and this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction, therefore, the complainant // 8 // has mala fidely filed two separate complaints for one incident and he wants to take advantage of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission with mala fide intention and ulterior motive. Shri Vinod Deshmukh, further argued that Shri Hitesh Chitalia, was only appointed as Preliminary Surveyor and the Preliminary Surveyor cannot assess the loss. He can only give Status Report and cannot assess the loss, therefore, if any loss has been assessed by Shri Hitesh Chitalia, then the same is not binding upon the Insurance Company. He further argued that the OPs appointed Shri S.R. Das, as Surveyor and Shri S.R. Das, visited the premises of the complainant and he inspected the premises of the complainant with one Mr. Ranjay Tiwari, employee of the complainant and he met with Mr. P.P. Gupta, Vice President of the complainant company and also met with Mr. Deepak Mehta in the laboratory and he prayed for providing relevant documents but the complainant did not provide relevant documents asked by Shri S.R. Das. Shri S.R. Das tried to obtain documents from the complainant several time but due to non-co-operation of the complainant, he could not receive the relevant documents and the complainant did not submit those documents, therefore, Shri S.R. Das submitted his report and on the basis of Surveyor's Report, the Insurance Company declared the case of the complainant as no claim case. He further argued that the complainant could not establish his case beyond reasonable doubt. The // 9 // Insurance Company has rightly declared case of the complainant as no claim case and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. The complainant has filed documents. Document annexure C-1 is Board resolution, document annexure C-2 is Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy issued by National Insurance Company Limited, document Annexure C-3 is Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy issued by New India Assurance Company Limited, document Annexure C-4 is intimation letter dated 26.05.2010, document Annexure C-5 is Claim Form, document Annexure C-6 is Fire Report, document Annexure C-7 is Test Report of Burn Coal, document Annexure C-8 is Statement of Security Manager, document Annexure C-9 is Test Report of Burn Coal by Chhattisgarh Ispat Bhumi Ltd., document Annexure C- 10 is Estimate of Loss of Coal by complainant, document Annexure - 11 is Test Report by Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, Bilaspur, document Annexure - 12 is Trial Balance and Stock Position Report by CRSH & Associates, dt. Postal acknowledgement, document Annexure C-13 is Assessment Cum Confirmation letter, document Annexure C-14 is No Claim Letter issued by O.P. No.3 dated 29.03.2011, document Annexure C-15 is letter dated 27.04.2011 sent by the complainant to O.P.No.3 on 27.04.2011, document Annexure C-16 is letter dated 16.11.2010 sent by the complainant to O.P.No.3, document Annexure C-17 is legal notice dated 22.11.2011, document // 10 // Annexure C-18 is postal receipt, document annexure C-19 is postal acknowledgement.
7. The OPs have also filed document. Document OP-1 is Report of Shri S.R. Das, Surveyor, document OP-2 is letter dated 14.02.2011 sent by Shri S.R.Das, Surveyor to the complainant company, document OP-3 is letter dated 10.03.2011 sent by Shri S.R. Das, Surveyor to the complainant company, document OP-4 is Status Survey Report of Shri Hitesh H. Chitalia, dated 15.07.2010, document OP-5 is letter dated 30.12.2010 sent by Shri S.R. Das, Surveyor to the Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai, document Annexure OP-6 are letter dated 01.12.2010, 08.12.2010, and 01.10.2010 sent by Shri S.R. Das, Surveyor to Shri Hitesh Chitalia.
8. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the documents.
9. The complainant filed document Annexure C-1. Document C-1 is Authority to Represent the Company in Court Cases. In the said authority letter the name of Shri B.B. Shrivastava, General Manager (Taxation & Legal) is mentioned. In the said letter it is mentioned that Shri B.B. Shrivastava, General Manager (Taxation & Legal) of the Company be and are hereby severally empowered to file and sign all papers, applications, plaints, Written Statements, Criminal Complaints, petitions, reviews, appeals and all other documents, Vakalatnama etc., // 11 // as well as affidavits as may be required to be filed and to lead evidence in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, / Hon'ble High Court 'Hon'ble Small Causes Court, Hon'ble Metropolitan Magistrate Courts / Hon'ble District Court / Hon'ble City Civil Court or before any other Government Authority, Tribunal and / or Local authorities in any state / in India in connection with any Legal proceedings by or against the company and to represent the Company in all other matters incidental thereto as may be considered necessary and expedient. In document Annexure C-1 it is further resolved that Mr. Gopal Garg, General Manager (Finance & Accounts) and Mr. B.B. Shrivastava, General Manager (Taxation & Legal) be and are hereby severally authorized to do followings act, deeds and things, as may be required, for work of the Company related to direct or indirect taxation :-
1. To apply for registration, renewal / amendment of registration certificates as may be necessary for the business of the Company under the provisions of Central Excise Act, Finance Act, Custom Act, Income Tax Act, State Sales Tax / VAT, Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, Entry Tax And Professional Tax Act and any other Act of similar nature of taxes.
2. ..............
3. To collect all types of statutory Forms from the Appropriate Authorities of State Government or Central Government and to delegate to any subordinate, the power to collect all types of statutory forms, any document, cheques, drafts etc. from any person, bank or any State / Central Government Authority.
// 12 //
4. .................
5. To receive summons, notices etc. and to sign, submit and verify various statements, applications, affidavits, declarations, undertakings, Forms, Returns and other requisite documents whatsoever and file them in any Court, Tribunal or Office in connection with Central Excise Act, Finance Act, Customs Act, Income Tax Act, the State Sales Tax / VAT Act, Central Sales Tax Act, Entry Tax Act, Professional Tax Act."
10. Looking to the above document, it appears that Shri B.B. Shrivastava, General Manager (Taxation & Legal) of the complainant company has been authorized to file consumer complaint before this Commission the present complaint has been signed and verified by Shri B.B. Shrivastava, General Manager (Taxation & Legal) of the complainant company. Shri B.B. Shrivastava, has been duly authorized by the complainant company M/s S.K.S. Ispat and Power Limited, therefore, the complaint filed by Shri B.B. Shrivatava on behalf of the complainant company is maintainable and Shri B.B. Shrivatava is competent to verify and sign the complaint and therefore, the complaint is maintainable.
11. The complainant filed consumer Complaint Case No.12/01 against the New India Assurance Company Limited. In the insurance policy description of risk is mentioned as STOCK OF COAL & IRON ORE and the sum assured is 10,00,00,000/- (Spontaneous Combustion) and Rs.10,00,00,000/- [Earthquake (Fire & Shock)]. The complainant // 13 // also filed consumer Complaint Case No.12/04 against National Insurance Company Limited. The sum assured is Rs.9,00,00,000/- and insured property is Storage of Coal and Sponge Iron at Factory premises and the sum assured is Rs.5,00,00,000/- and insured property is storage of stores and spares at factory (includes chemicals and fuels) storage of stores & spares). In both the insurance policies, it appears that stock of coal and iron ore were insured and according to the complainant the incident took place on 26.05.2010 at about 6.00 P.M. In both the complaint cases, the coal was burnt due to spontaneous combustion of coal.
12. Looking to the complaints, it appears that the complainant prayed to direct the OPs to indemnify complainant's loss of the insured item i.e. coal. Therefore, it is essential for the complainant to file a single complaint against both the Insurance Companies and the both the complaints is in respect of same cause of action. Had the claim sought by the complainant in both the complaints, pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission ousted apparently. If the complainant files single complaint for relief sought by him in both the complaints, the total amount of the compensation will more than Rs.1 crore, which is apparently ousted the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission, therefore, it appears that the complainant has intentionally filed two separate complaints for same cause of action taking the complaint within pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.
// 14 //
13. Document OP-3 filed in Complaint Case No.12/01 is a note of Deepak Mehta, Director / Authorized Signatory of SKS Ispat and Power Limited. In the said document it is mentioned that "Also the reaction is chain type with catching of fire in subsequent heaps and deterioration of Quality. This burning material was also shown to the primary surveyor at site on 26th May 2010. In consultation, this burning material was consumed in Kiln to avoid further spreading of fire in other coal heaps and minimize losses. Due to consumption of same, left over material of coal was not available afterwards physically at site."
14. Document Annexure OP-4 filed in Complaint Case No.12/01 is letter dated 21.06.2010 written by Shri S.R. Das, Surveyor to Shri P.V.S. Chandra Sekhar, Vide President (Comm.) SKS Ispat & Power Limited, Siltara Industrial Growth Centre, Raipur. In the said document it is mentioned that "You are, therefore, under the circumstances requested to put your point of view as to how to ascertain the quantum of damaged materials as there was no left over for reference to substantiate your claim. While on the subject "Analysis of remains Attached" as mentioned in the note has not been received. Please arrange to send me the same."
15. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the complainant could not provide relevant documents and // 15 // complainant could not substantiate his claim. Surveyor Shri S.R. Das, mentioned that the burning material was not available at the place of occurrence therefore, loss could not be determined.
16. In the instant case, the complainant could not comply with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and when Surveyor had visited the place of occurrence, burning material was not available there for assessment of loss and according to the Surveyor the coal was consumed by the complainant, therefore, the loss could not be assessed.
17. So far as report of Shri Hitesh Chitalia, Surveyor is concerned, according to the Insurance Company, Shri Hitesh Chitalia was appointed as Surveyor for only giving Status Report and he was appointed as Preliminary Surveyor. Shri Hitesh Chitala has submitted his report. At page no.40 of the file letter dated 20.01.2011 sent by Shri Hitesh H Chitalia to the complainant is annexed. In the said letter, it is mentioned that "I have conducted Preliminary Survey during above occurrence of fire in coal due to Spontaneous Combustion and assessed affected coal quantity in tune of 3000 M.Ton, for which your representative Ranjay Tiwari, Sr. Manager, F & A, had given verbal consent at that time.
Now you are requested to issue an acceptance letter for quantity of loss, which agreed by you to settle the claim at the earliest."
// 16 //
18. In the said letter Shri Hitesh H. Chitalia, gave his preliminary survey report that due to spontaneous combustion, coal quantity in tune of 3000 M. Ton was lost and he wrote letter to the complainant that he accepted the report submitted by him and the complainant company accepted the loss assessed by Shri Hitesh H. Chitalia. The OPs (Insurance Company) also filed Status Survey Report dated 15.07.2010 of Shri Hitesh H. Chitalia. In the said Status Survey Report, it is mentioned that :-
Nature and Extent of Damage :
It is approx 3000 to 3500 M Ton Coal affected due to the occurrence as Per prima facia observations.
Conclusion :
In my opinion, it is a genuine claim of Fire due to Spontaneous Combustion during Night, Resulted in chain (Chemical) reaction Captured by two stakes of Coal inside Insured's Plant in open and Insured suffered loss as it burnt partially."
19. In the case of Ashu Textiles v. New India Assurance Company & Anr., III (2009) CPJ 272 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission observed that the Surveyor's report has to be given more weightage than the report of Fire Brigade and compensation to be assessed on basis of detailed survey report.
// 17 //
20. In Khimjibhai & Sons v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., IV (2011) CPJ 458 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission observed that "It is to be noted that it is in accordance with the requirement of law that a surveyor is required to be appointed by the Insurance Company and when such a surveyor who is licensed professional to assess such loss gives a report with reasons to support the same, such a report can be discredited only on the basis of specific grounds which are required to be recorded in the order."
21. In the case of Ankur Surana v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., I (2013) CPJ 440 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission observed that "it is well established by now that the report of the surveyor is an important document and the same should not be rejected by the Fora below unless cogent reasons are recorded for doing so. The State Commission has stated that it did not see any legal ground before the District Forum to reject the report of the Surveyor. The report of the surveyor should have been rebutted on behalf of the complainant/petitioner since the respondents/OPs had filed the surveyor's report as their evidence."
22. In the instant case, Shri Hitesh H. Chitalia, was not appointed by the Insurance Company as Surveyor and he was only appointed for giving Status Report, therefore, his Report is not taken into consideration for assessment of loss of coal due to spontaneous combustion. Shri S.R. Das, Surveyor was appointed by the Insurance // 18 // Company for assessment of loss and he had submitted his detailed report.
23. Looking to the aforesaid report of Shri Hitesh H. Chitalia, it appears that Shri Hitesh H. Chitalia, himself assessed loss or damages and he assessed the loss near about 19 to 20 lakhs.
24. According to the OPs (Insurance Company), Shri Hitesh H. Chitalia, was only appointed for giving Status Report and he himself assessed the loss. According to Shri Hitesh H. Chitalia, the complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs.19 to 20 lakhs but the complainant assessed loss as Rs.26,00,000/- which is contradictory to each other and Shri Hitesh Chitalia, has exceeded his jurisdiction, therefore, report of Shri Hitesh Chitalia, is not acceptable.
25. Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy was issued in favour of the complainant by the OPs (Insurance Company). Condition No.6 of the policy is thus :-
"6 (i) On the happening of any loss or damage the Insured shall forthwith give notice thereof to the Company and shall within 15 days after the loss or damage, or such further time as the Company may in writing allow in that behalf, deliver to the company-
(a) A Claim in writing for the loss or damage containing as particular an account as may be reasonably practicable, of all the several articles or items of property damaged or destroyed and of the amount of the loss or damage // 19 // thereto respectively, having regard to their value at the time of loss or damage not including profit of any kind.
(b) Particulars of all other insurances, if any-
The insured shall also at all times at his own expense produce, procure and give to the Company all such further particulars, plans, specification, books, vouchers, invoices duplicate or copies thereof, documents, investigation reports (internal/external) proofs and information with respect to the claim and the 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 liability of the Company as may be reasonably required by or on behalf of the Company together with a declaration on oath or in other legal from of the truth of the claim and of any matters connected therewith. No claim under the policy shall be payable unless the terms of this conditions have been complied with."
(ii) In no case whatsoever shall the Company be liable for any loss or damage after the expiry of 12 months from the happening of the loss or damage unless the claim is the subject of pending action or arbitration; it being expressly agreed and declared that if the Company shall disclaim liability for any claim hereunder and such claim shall not within 12 calendar months from the date of the disclaimer have been made the subject matter of a suit in a court of law then the claim shall for all purposes be deemed to have been abandoned and shall not thereafter be recoverable hereunder."
26. From the bare perusal of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, it appears that the terms of the policy have to be construed as it is and Court or Forum or Tribunal can not substitute its // 20 // own condition and Court or Forum or Tribunal can not substitute the words which are not intended.
27. In the case of M/s Vijay Concerns Vs State Bank of India, Through Branch Manager & anr, 2013(4) CPR 165(NC), Hon'ble National Commission, has observed thus :-
"9.....................The Courts should always try to interpret the "words"
in the insurance contract as they have been expressed by the parties. It is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words. The words used in the Insurance Contract must be given paramount importance."
28. In the case of M/s Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. Vs M/s Garg Sons International, 2013 (4) CPR 373(SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court, has observed thus :-
"9. The insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy.
"The terms of the contract have to be construed strictly, without altering the nature of the contract as the same may affect the interests of the parties adversely."
29. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs M/s Harchand Rai Chandan Lal 2005 (1) CPR 64 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court, has observed thus :-
"6. The terms of the policy have to be construed as it is and we cannot add or subtract something. Howsoever liberally we may // 21 // construe the policy but we cannot take liberalism to the extent of substituting the words which are not intended. It is true that in common parlance the term 'burglary' would mean theft but it has to be proceeded with force of violence. If the element of force and violence is not preset then the insured cannot claim compensation against theft from the insurance company. (Para 6).
It is not open to interpret the expression appearing in policy in terms of common law; but it has to give meaning to the expression reproduced the terms of the policy as also the definition of burglary and / or housebreaking as defined in the policy."
30. Looking to the Surveyor's Report, it appears that the complainant could not give any clarification asked by the Surveyor when the Surveyor reached to the place of occurrence. It also appears that the complainant had suppressed the material facts regarding the incident and loss suffered by him, therefore, the report of the Surveyor, is reliable and acceptable, On the basis of Surveyor's Report, the complainant could not establish his case beyond doubt and the complainant has not been able to prove that he has suffered loss due to spontaneous combustion of coal, therefore, the OPs (Insurance Company) has rightly denied the claim of the complainant and complainant is not entitled for getting any compensation from the Insurance Company.
// 22 //
31. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to the cost of this complaint.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar)
President Member
/05/2014 /05/2014