State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Forace Polymers Pvt. Limited vs United India Insurance Company Limited on 16 April, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 85 / 2007
Forace Polymers Pvt. Limited
through its Director Sh. S.C. Gupta
Delhi-Haridwar Road, Bahadarabad
District Haridwar
......Appellant / Complainant
Versus
United India Insurance Company Limited
through its Branch Manager
Super Complex, Delhi Road
Jwalapur, District Haridwar
......Respondent / Opposite Party
Sh. Rajesh Singh Rathore and Sh. Surendra Kumar Sharma, Learned
Counsel for the Appellant
Smt. Savita Sethi, Learned Counsel for Respondent
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 136 / 2007
United India Insurance Company Limited
having its Registered Head Office at 24, Whites Road
Chennai and amongst others a Branch Office at
Super Complex, Delhi Road
Jwalapur, District Haridwar and one of its
Regional Marketing Cell at 35/36, Tagore Villa
Dehradun through Sh. Ashutosh Mathur, Regional Manager
......Appellant / Opposite Party
Versus
Forace Polymers Pvt. Limited
through its Director Sh. S.C. Gupta
Delhi-Haridwar Road, Bahadarabad
District Haridwar
......Respondent / Complainant
Smt. Savita Sethi, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Rajesh Singh Rathore and Sh. Surendra Kumar Sharma, Learned
Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Mrs. Kusum Lata Sharma, Member
2
Dated: 16/04/2012
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President):
These two appeals arise out of the order dated 01.03.2007 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 30 of 2006. By the said order, the District Forum has partly allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite party - insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 10,71,656/- to the complainant together with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 1,500/- towards litigation expenses. By a dissenting order of the same date, the learned President of the District Forum has also partly allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite party - insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 6,94,083/- to the complainant together with interest @6% p.a. pendentelite and future and Rs. 1,500/- towards litigation expenses. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the District Forum, the complainant has filed First Appeal No. 85 of 2007 for enhancement and whereas aggrieved by the impugned order, the insurance company has filed First Appeal No. 136 of 2007, thereby assailing the legality and propriety of the impugned order passed by the District Forum. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment and order, these are disposed of together by this common order.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant - company is engaged in manufacturing of catalyst and resins etc. and having its plant at Delhi-Haridwar Road, Bahadarabad, District Haridwar. The complainant has taken a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy from 3 the opposite party - United India Insurance Company Limited valid for the period from 18.04.2002 to 17.04.2003. On 05.06.2002, when the manufacturing process was in progress, an explosion occurred in one of the reactors of the factory, which was accidental in nature and beyond the control of the complainant and its staff. In the said explosion, various equipments, building and material were damaged, causing a loss of Rs. 15,68,225.16/- to the complainant. The complainant lodged the claim with the insurance company. The insurance company appointed surveyor, who visited the premises. The insurance company vide letter dated 20.01.2003 repudiated the claim of the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum.
3. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that on lodging of the claim by the complainant, Deepak Gupta and Company was appointed as spot surveyor on 05.06.2002 itself, who in their preliminary survey report dated 13.07.2002 observed the immediate cause of loss as steep rise in temperature in the reactor turning into huge blast. Thereafter, the insurance company appointed S.K. Agarwal and Company as final surveyor, who submitted their report to the insurance company on 16.11.2002 and observed that the physical evidences available in the form of damages indicated that the explosion in the reactor occurred due to sudden and very high pressure build up within the reactor. The main cause for this pressure build up could be uncontrolled exothermic reaction probably caused by failure of cooling pump or failure of the agitation system. The surveyor, however, assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 6,94,083/-.
44. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, partly allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 01.03.2007 in the above terms. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the District Forum, the complainant has filed First Appeal No. 85 of 2007 for enhancement and whereas aggrieved by the impugned order, the insurance company has filed First Appeal No. 136 of 2007.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the insurance company has argued that the loss was not covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim.
7. We do not find any force in the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the insurance company. The reason being that S.K. Agarwal and Company in their final survey report has clearly mentioned that during survey, no breach of any implied warranty was observed. This apart, Deepak Gupta and Company in their preliminary survey report dated 13.07.2002 has observed that the immediate cause of loss seems to be steep rise in temperature in the reactor and in turn turning into huge blast. There is nothing on record to show that there were any laches on the part of the staff / employees of the complainant and that they did not take appropriate precautions during the manufacturing process. Thus, we are of the definite view that the loss occasioned to the complainant was fully covered under the policy and the insurance company made deficiency in service by repudiating the claim and the finding to that effect recorded by the District Forum, needs no interference.
58. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that there was no justification on the part of the District Forum to award sum of Rs. 10,71,656/- as compensation. Learned counsel submitted that the surveyor appointed by the insurance company has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 6,94,083/- and there being nothing contrary to the report of the surveyor on record, the complainant can be held entitled to the compensation of Rs. 6,94,083/- and not beyond that. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the surveyor has not assessed the actual loss suffered by the complainant and the District Forum was justified in awarding the amount in excess of the loss assessed by the surveyor.
9. We find substance in this submission raised by the learned counsel for the insurance company and we are of the view that the District Forum was not at all justified in awarding the amount in excess of the loss assessed by the surveyor. There is nothing on record as may have displaced the report submitted by the surveyor and the loss assessed by him in this case. Learned counsel for the complainant cited a decision of Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sri C.N. Hariharan; 2009 (3) CPR
22. In the said case, it was held that where surveyor was not competent to assess loss sustained to a building, report submitted by him was treated to be one by an incompetent expert. In the present case, there is no evidence on record to show that the surveyor was an incompetent person or he has not submitted correct report. The surveyor has dealt with the matter in exhaustive manner and has submitted a detailed report, which can not be said to be incorrect. Here, it may be mentioned that the learned President vide his 6 dissenting order while placing implicit reliance on the report of the surveyor, has awarded the compensation of Rs. 6,94,083/-, the loss assessed by the surveyor. We are of the view that the view taken by the learned President of the District Forum being just and proper, need to be endorsed and the order impugned is to be modified accordingly. Thus, the appeal filed by the insurance company is to be partly allowed. Since we have held that the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum per impugned order is on the higher side and we have reduced the amount of compensation, therefore, there is no question of any enhancement and the appeal filed by the complainant for enhancement being without any force, the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal filed by the insurance company bearing First Appeal No. 136 of 2007 is partly allowed and the insurance company is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 6,94,083/- to the complainant together with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 1,500/- as costs and we endorse the view taken by the learned President of the District Forum. First Appeal No. 85 of 2007 filed by the complainant for enhancement is dismissed. Costs of the appeals made easy.
11. Let the copy of the order be kept on the record of First Appeal No. 136 of 2007.
(SMT. KUSUM LATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL) K