Delhi

StateCommission

c-106/2001

SHRI. RAJENDER MANGLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MS NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

10 Feb 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision:10.02.2016

Complaint Case No. 106/2001

 

In the matter of:

 

Sh. Rajender Mangla

Proprietor

M/s Jagdamba Overseas

323, Sant Nagar

East of Kailash

New Delhi-110065                                              …..........Complainant

 

Versus

M/s National Insurance Company Ltd.

Branch Office: First

5 C/1 and 2, B.P.Railway Road

N.I.T. Faridabad

(Haryana)                                                              ….....Opposite Party

CORAM

N P Kaushik        -        Presiding Member

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?           Yes

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                          Yes

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

JUDGMENT

1.      Admitted facts of the complaint are that the complainant took an insurance policy of National Insurance Company Ltd. (in short the OP) for an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- and the same was valid for the period from 24.11.1999 to 23.11.2000. Complainant who is engaged in the trade of all kinds of fabrics and ready-made garments had stored his goods at 323 Sant Nagar East of Kailash New Delhi. It is also the admitted case of the parties that there were heavy rains in Delhi on the intervening night of 17^th and 18^th July 2000, resulting into inundation of the godown of the complainant.
2.      The godown of the complainant got waterlogged upto 3 feet though there were wooden frames kept on the ground for storing the fabric. The complainant put up his claim for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- with the OP but the OP allowed the claim only to the tune of Rs. 8151/-. Contention of the complainant is that in order to cover the loss he had sold the damaged goods for an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- and for that reason he preferred his claim only to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-. OP appointed its surveyor named Sh. A.K.Gupta of Adarsh Associates who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 70,650.90/-. After deducting the amount of policy excess of 2.5% of sum assured, OP offered a claim of Rs. 8151/-. Aggrieved against the directions of the OP, complainant filed the present complaint.
3.      Defence raised by the OP is that the fabric of 28,588 meters of different quality was allegedly damaged. Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned here that prior to this, an incidence of fire had also taken place in one of the godowns of the OP on 15.04.1999 for which the claimant had claimed a loss of 33,848 meters of fabric.
4.      Surveyor who had verified the purchase and sale records for the period from 15.04.1999 to 31.03.2000 and from 01.04.2000 to the date of loss, ascertained that the closing stock as on 31.03.2000 was 11,449 meters. To make the things more clear, the loss allegedly suffered by the claimant can be bifurcated into two categories. One part of the stock was of the nature which could be put to use and sold after processing. The second part of the stock that got damaged was of the nature which had suffered irreversible loss. For the stock of the first category, surveyor calculated the processing charges (washing and finishing) for 10,262 meters of P.V.suiting at the rate of Rs. 4 per meter. Processing charges for gray fabric of 5221 meter were calculated at the rate of Rs. 3.50 per meter. Processing charges for 1099 meter of georgette fabric were calculated at the rate of Rs. 4 per meter. Calculated thus, a total loss for an amount of Rs. 68,723.90/- was assessed. Freight from Faridabad to the godown of the insured was for of Rs. 5927/-. Total loss thus works out to Rs. 70,650.90/-. After deducting the policy excess of 2.5% of the sum assured, the complainant was held entitled to the amount of Rs. 8151/-. Now coming to the loss of second category i.e. cloth which had suffered an irreversible loss, the surveyor opined that after processing, the condition of P.V.suiting and gray fabric was found OK and acceptable to the complainant. It was observed by the surveyor that the complainant had suffered no loss on this count.
5.      I have perused the written arguments filed by the counsels for the parties and heard oral arguments addressed by them at length.
6.      Perusal of the record shows that the complainant dispatched 28,588 meters of fabric vide its various challans for the purpose of processing. It goes to show that the fabric of both the categories referred to above i.e. one which could be made acceptable after processing and the other that had suffered irreversible loss, was sent for processing. In other words, even the fabric which was alleged to have suffered an irreversible damage had also been sent for processing. Clearly, the complainant cannot make any claim for total loss of any quantum of fabric.
7.      Now coming to the proposition of the processing charges, complainant claimed the same at an uniform rate of Rs. 12 per meter. On the contrary, the OP has considered the charges @ Rs. 4 per meter for P.V.suiting and georgette whereas for the fabric oven gray processing charges at the rate of Rs. 3.50 per meter have been taken into account. Plea raised by the complainant is that he has been charged the uniform rate of Rs. 12 per meter by M/s Karanita Tex Prints Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad. Complainant has placed on record the copies of the challans and invoices. On the other hand the surveyor as per his report made an enquiry from ‘orphic dying and printing malls Faridabad’ who quoted the rates of Rs. 4 per meter for georgette and P.V.suiting and Rs. 3.50 per meter for oven gray. Surveyor also approached M/s Karanita Tex Prints Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad and wanted a reply to certain queries. Surveyor stated that no response was given by M/s Karanita Tex Prints Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad. Now we are confronted with the question as to what are the reasonable processing rates in view of the rival contentions of the parties in this behalf. Surveyor simply made an enquiry from Orphic, Faridabad in relation to the processing charges. It is not the case of the present surveyor that Orphic Malls had actually done the job of processing or for any other business concern at the said rates. At the same time, the contention of uniform rate of Rs. 12 per meter, also does not inspire confidence for the reason that M/s Karanita Tex Prints Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad remained silent to the questions posed and did not allow the surveyor to have access to its papers. I, therefore, find it safe to calculate the processing charges at the average rate of Rs. 8 per meter (Rs. 12 + Rs. 4/2). 28,588 meters of fabric was sent for processing. Calculated thus, the amount works out to Rs. 2,28,704/-. After deducting the policy excess of 2.5% of sum assured, (Rs. 62500), the complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs. 1,66,204/-. Complainant is thus entitled to the amount of Rs. 1,66,204/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 02.01.2001 till the date of its realisation. Complaint is accordingly disposed of.
8.      Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.

 

(N P Kaushik)

Member (Judicial)