Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The opposite party in its written version has denied the contentions of the complainant of loss of 330.000 MT Soya DOC and averred that there was fire loss of only 45 MT. It is further averred that the complainant did not provide all details and proper support to the investigator. The complainant did not support the opposite party as well as its investigator for more than 2.5 years, hence the opposite party was left with no option but to close the claim for pending non-compliance from the complainant since 01.08.2016. Since the claim of the complainant has not been repudiated yet hence the complaint is premature and this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint being premature for which the cause action has not arisen even on 27.08.2018. By way of amendment in Para 16 (a) it is further averred that the Surveyor M/s. B.M. Gupta and Associates Pvt. Ltd. (in fact „Gupta & Associates (Assessors) Pvt. Ltd.‟) has submitted its report of loss of 330 MT worth Rs.91,68,348/-, which is manipulated, highly exaggerated, unreliable and without any substance. There are many irregularities in the process of survey for damaged stock, therefore, this survey report is not in order and highly prejudiced to provide benefit to the complainant illegally hence it is false. The survey report submitted by Shri U.C. Nahar for loss of 45 MT worth Rs.12,50,190/- is realistic. The investigator Mr. U.C. Nahar for computing the actual loss has taken into consideration the handling loss 0.30 % and this rate of deduction for handling loss is certified by the Clearing House Agency of the complainant. On this ground also the quantum of loss Complaint No.: K.N. Resources Private Limited Date of Pronouncement:

16. Regarding appointment of surveyor Mr. Nikunj Naik the insurance company has tried to explain that the first surveyor Mr. B.M. Gupta was not competent to make survey of the loss in question as he was not surveyor of fire loss therefore the Surveyor Mr. Nikunj Naik was appointed. But if the fact being so and the insurance company was of the view that Mr. B.M. Gupta was not competent to make survey and assess the fire loss they ought to have cancelled the appointment of the Mr. B.M. Gupta first and then to appoint the Surveyor Mr. Nikunj Naik. In the entire record there is no document to show that appointment of Mr. B.M. Complaint No.: K.N. Resources Private Limited Date of Pronouncement:

17. Otherwise also in the record the only survey report which is brought on record is of the Gupta & Associates (Assessors) Pvt. Ltd. dated 11.02.20015, marked as OP-46 which runs into as many as 148 pages which contains Fire Loss Assessment Report six pages and its enclosures including photographs. This survey report titled as „Fire Lass Assessment Report‟ starts with the words „Under the instruction received from The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (211600) Gandhidham, we the undersigned Surveyors and Loss Assessors attended at the Surya Vinayak Warehouse No.3 Kidana Gandhidham, in order to carry out survey & ascertain the loss caused to the stock of Soya DOC which reported got damaged due to Spontaneous Combustion on 23.04.2014 and at the last page of the report i.e. page No.6 Surveyor Mr. K D Vyas (SLA63817/2013-18) and Surveyor Mr. R.K. Patel, (SLA56604/2011-16), category Fire A have signed the report with Surveyor Mr. B.M. Gupta has also signed the report along with them. Hence this plea that Mr. B.M. Gupta was not competent to assess fire loss is also not tenable looking to the fact that Gupta & Associates (Assessors) Pvt. Ltd. has submitted its report duly signed by Complaint No.: K.N. Resources Private Limited Date of Pronouncement:

CC/19/14 Vs. 13/06/2023 New India Insurance Company Limited three surveyors and one of them was of the „Category Fire-A‟. If for the sake of arguments if it is assumed that the said surveyor was not empanelled to assessed the Fire Loss, the insurance company ought to have rejected the their report instead of acting upon that report and appointing investigator for further investigation of the complaint by Mr. Nikunj Naik regarding that report but the said report was never rejected by the insurance company. If it was a report of incompetent surveyor for assessing fire loss the insurance company ought to have outright rejected the report but it has not done so.