Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

: Occurrence of fire in the Unit on H).02.10^ THE INCIDENCE at about 10-45 pm r : I) Stock of finished goods i.e. Mango pulp PROPERTY INVOLVED packed in tins.
: 2fKutcha shed.^ : M/s. Ponni Agro Industries (P) Ltd.. LOCATION Sappanipatti Village, No.2 Rogini Gardens, Karagur P.O., Krishnagiri- fl Sappaipatti village near Krtshnagiri on 11.02.10 and su^^^^ sunrev and assessftgJosLdueto . occurrence of fire in .the p^s stock of finished goods i.e. mango pulp packedjntos. 5 ( C£- • J $ jj Office : 2552094 Fa* : 0422-2553182 COIMBATORE-641002 Mobile : 93448 78899 e-mail : asawa22glaniail.com Page|4 SURVEYORS & I.OSS ASSESSORS ASAWA <& CO.
The insured has submitted copies of the land documents, property tax payment receipt, topo sketch of the land , patta, certificate of ownership of land (marked-Dl to D4) as a proof of address. A copy of the layout plan (marked- D5) is enclosed. There are no. of buildings in the premises. The Plant & Machinery and stock of Mango pulp was stored in theipiicca"go3oW) In addition to the pucca godown there were kutcha shedsjn the„premises housing stock of mango pulp cans, raw material, office etc. /■/' The kutcha sheds were said to have been constructed in the year 2004. It was constructed with stone pillars and thatched roofing. There wefe"no doors and windows. It was open from all the sides. There was no flooring either. We could notice a hollow brick wall, up to a height of around'^fei^^s, all around the sheds. The construction of the shed was thus KUTChX/', ---
1 he cost of manufacturing has been giiven as:
in Rs per carton Totapuri Mango Pulp 5193F Alphonso Mango Pulp 945.81 Raspuri Mango Pulp 540.33 M"50 pulp while assessing the »ck «« Only 'S' PI<K1UC,i0" of of The PW ^ons "the kUtCha Sheds R was ,0 be i"
3. The surveyor has reported that considering the balance sheet figures the net stock works out in negative which shows that the stock which is damaged and physically counted does not belong to you and therefore you do not have any insurable interest in it.
4. Further you were unable to prove the extent of loss suffered by you in respect of stocks by authenticated records.

With regard to loss/damage to the stock of cans of mango pulp, the insured claimed loss of 139956 cans of mango pulp of its own valued at approx Rs. 1.21 crores (subsequently revised upwards to 217956 cans valued at RS18837552 ) apart from additional 78000 cans claimed destroyed for which third parties i.e. M/s Oceanic Tropical Food Products India Ltd (Oceanic) and M/s Capricorn Foods Products India Ltd (Capricorn) were owners and have also claimed insurance from their respective insurers qua this quantity. Admittedly, the fire and loss was only in Kutcha godown and the stocks in pukka godown was unaffected. The grounds 3 and 4 of the repudiation are based on the observations of the surveyor in the assessment of loss of stocks made by him at internal pages 12 to 17 of the report. The surveyor has attempted to make assessment on three alternative methods and while doing so he has, although finally assessed the loss on the basis of detailed physical inventory of damaged/lost items, also made two critical observations based on the books of accounts, more particularly the balance sheet as on 31.03.2009, regarding the position of the quantum of stock. First, it has been observed on the internal page 12 in the survey report that there is no availability of any damaged stock in the kutcha shed as per books of accounts of the complainant if the computation of such book-stock is started by taking closing stock figure in Page | 67 the balance sheet as at 31.03.2009 and if it is further adjusted for the figures of production from 01.04.2009 to 10.02.2010 and sales during the same period including that on 10.02.2010 (annexure XI and X2 to the survey report). Annexure X3 to the survey report, giving this calculation, is simple and self- explanatory. As per the same, the stock of the insured which can be available on the affected kutcha shed of the insured on 10.02.2010 at 10.45 PM, and which can get destroyed in fire, is less than zero as per the books of accounts of the complainant. The surveyor has carried out this exercise of arriving at the stock of the insured in the kutcha godown, by adopting the figures of opening stock as per balance-sheet as on 01.04.2009 as starting point and adjusting the same by the figures of production and sales as provided by the insured for the period 01.04.2009 to 10.02.2010. Such stock for the unit as a whole as on the date of the incident comes to 374883 cans. As such, after deducting the number of cans stored in the pukka godown as inventorised by the surveyor (297280 cans), and the stocks of M/s Capricorn and M/s Ocean totalling (78000 cans), the available stock of the insured so as to be in kutcha godown is less than zero, i.e minus 397 cans. The sound stock of 51780 cans claimed to be belonging to the insured was further and additionally found in kutcha shed and duly inventorised, implying that for such actual and physical finding of the stock, the book-stock of the complainant as on the date of the incident has to be minus 52177 cans, i.e. the claim of ownership is more than what is evidenced by books of accounts. As such, even the sound stock of the insured 5 as found by the surveyor and inventorised by him is more than the book-stock. Thus, the surveyor concludes that if the balance sheet figure of stock as on 31.03.2009 is adopted, which has to be so, there is no possibility that the stock of the insured as "reflected" in the books of accounts as on 10.02.2010 has in fact got destroyed, because there was no such of the insured to have got so destroyed. In other words, what the surveyor concludes, as explained, is that while the quantity of lost/damaged stock of 139956 cans of mango pulp as physically found and inventorised as stored in kutcha godown, obviously did get destroyed in the incident of fire, still it cannot be concluded on the basis of books of accounts that the destroyed stock belonged to the insured so as for Page | 68 the insured to have insurable interest therein or to claim indemnification by contending that the same was covered under the subject policy. The sequitur to this is the implied conclusion of the surveyor that the stock which got destroyed, in fact, belonged not to the insured but to some third parties. Similarly, as second critical observation, the surveyor has also arrived at the stock at the date and time of the incident on the basis of stock statement as on 31.03.2009 submitted to the bank in connection with the hypothecation of stocks for the loan. On the same line as discussed with regard to the computation of stock on the basis of the balance sheet as discussed above, the surveyor has given the computation in annexure X4. As can be seen from perusal of Annexure X4, the available stock belonging to the insured that can be available in kutcha godown is worked out at 32699 cans. However, the surveyor has physically inventorised even the sound stock of 51780 cans claimed by the insured to be belong to it available in the kutcha godown. Thus, he comes to the same conclusive finding of negative stock of 19081 cans, re-emphasizing the conclusion that no stock belonging to the insured got destroyed in the incident of fire at kutcha godown and in fact what got destroyed in kutcha godown was neither the stock belonging to the insured nor insured had any insurable interest therein and that the destroyed stock in fact belonged to third parties. The third assessment method adopted by the surveyor is based on the inventory of damaged stock prepared by him as per which the assessment of indemnifiable loss of stock is Rs.6696565/-. However, based on the first two conclusions of the surveyor of negative book-stock, the insurer has repudiated the claim, inter alia, on the grounds 3 and 4 in the repudiation letter as reproduced above.