Haryana

StateCommission

A/479/2016

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ARJAN AUTO PVT. - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.SIDHU

07 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

 

First Appeal No.479 of 2016

Date of the Institution:27.05.2016

Date of Decision: 07.11.2016

 

United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office , SCO No.17-18, HUDA Market, Sector-7, Gurgaon-122001, through its Branch Manager, through authorized signatory of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional office, Chandigarh, SCO-123-124, Sector-17 B, Chandigarh.

                                                                             .….Appellant

Versus

M/s Arjan Auto Pvt. Ltd., 81 Udyog Vihar, Phase-1, Gurgaon-122016 through its Managing Director.

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.S.S. Sidhu, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                    Mr.P.K. Gupta, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1.      United India Insurance Co. Ltd.-Opposite party (for short ‘OP’) is in appeal against the Order dated 19.11.2015 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby the complaint of M/s Arjan Auto Pvt. Ltd. has been allowed directing the  OP to pay Rs.4,56,138/- and Rs.15,000/- on account of transportation charges, (after deducting salvage of Rs.65,000/- and Rs.10,000/- on account o f excess clause) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.      Briefly stated, the complainant obtained Fire Policy for their factory situated at Gurgaon covering the risk of the plant, machinery including stock valid from 06.04.2011 to 05.04.2012. There was loss due to fire in the factory in April, 2011 which resulted into total loss on one DG set. Sh. Naresh Jain was appointed as surveyor to assess the loss. They submitted the claim for Rs.5,38,000/-, but the replacement value assessed by surveyor in his report was Rs.4,71,158/-. Since the premium for the particular DG set was charged by the OP on the prevailing market value of Rs.5,38,000/- , the complainant requested for revising the claim. On the other hand, the OP had offered only Rs.54,035/- vide their letter dated 13.09.2011 based on the depreciated value of the DG set after deducting the salvage value and excess clause. When the OP failed to reimburse the claim of the complainant as per reinstatement market value accessed by the surveyor, the complainant approached the District Forum to direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.3,96,138/- and compensation of Rs.1,10,814/- .

3.      According to the OP, the surveyor vide his report dated 29.06.2011 assessed the loss as per the terms and conditions of the subject insurance policy after adjusting the depreciation, costs of salvage and the amount of excess clause to the tune of Rs.54,035/-. The complainant was informed that an amount of Rs.53,925/- was approved as full and final settlement on the basis of the loss assessed by the surveyor. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. But the learned District Forum rejected their pleas and accepted the complaint vide order dated 19.11.2015 by awarding to the complainant as mentioned above.

4.      Against this Order of the learned District Forum, the OP has filed Appeal before us contending that the learned District Forum has accepted the complaint without any legal justification. The appellant reiterating the submission as made by it before the District Forum has stressed that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP and complainant was only entitled to the amount offered by the OP.

5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that the complainant had himself prayed for the payment of reinstatement value of DG set (less salvage value and policy excess) a sum of Rs.3,96,138/- alongwith compensation of Rs.1,10,814/- and costs of litigation Rs.20,000/-. The OP got the replacement value assessed by the surveyor, which according to his report was Rs,4,71,158/- However, as the premium for the DG set had been charged by the OP on the prevailing market value i.e. Rs.5,38,000/-, the claim had to be passed on the current replacement value, but the OP only offered Rs.54,035/- vide their letter dated 13.09.2011, which was based on the depreciated value on the DG set after reducing the salvage value and excess value. On the other hand, the complainant had himself annexed with his complaint letter dated 30.01.2012 alongwith details of the insurance value of plant and machinery, in which the total amount mentioned comes to Rs.4,07,000/-. Therefore, the claim made by the complainant has to be allowed according to the amount mentioned by the  complainant himself (Annexure A-6).

6.      Accordingly, we partly allow the appeal and modify the order dated 19.11.2015 passed by the learned District Forum and direct the OP to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.4,07,000/-. (after deducting salvage of Rs.65,000/- and Rs.10,000/- on account of excess clause) i.e. Rs.3,32,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,125/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

November 07th, 2016

Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench