Delhi

New Delhi

CC/712/2012

Singhal Timbers Pvt.Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. New India Assurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

-

31 Aug 2020

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC. 712 /2012                                                               Dated:

In the matter of:

 

Singhal Timbers Pvt.Ltd.

Through its Director Sheri Sanjay Gupta

A-10/1, Jangpuri Ext.

Bhogal, New Delhi                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

           New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

           Regional Office No.1,

         Jeewan Bharti Buiding,

        New Delhi-110001

                                                                                              ……………OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

H.M. VYAS-MEMBER 

 ORDER

The present complaint has been filed on the ground of non-payment of damages/cost of inundation of water in the basement of the site where the stock was lying. The complainant had taken a policy for fire and peril also in the stock. It is alleged that the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs. 34,93,085.40/- due to damage of stocks. The intimation of the lost stock was given on 20/09/2010 to the OP. The OP appointed the surveyor M/S R.N. Sharma & Co. The surveyor visited the godown, took photograph and other details of damages from the complainant and prepared joint inventory of damaged stock which was duly signed by the complainant. The surveyor filed the detailed surveyor report to the OP. The complainant then received letter dated 23/02/2011 from the OP intimating that the claim has closed as “no claim” due to the reason that   “as the inundation is caused by seepage of water and not to flood, the complainant perused the matter, but with no outcome.

Prayer is made to the Commission for direction to OP to pay Rs. 17,47,043/- as insurance claim and Rs. 1,00,000/- as harassment, mental agony with interest @ 24% on the said amount and Rs. 51,000/- as litigation charges made.

The OP was proceeded with Ex-parte initially and said order of this Forum dated 19/12/2012 was set aside by Hon’ble State Commission vide its order dated 26/02/2014. Thereafter, the OP filed written statement.

The OP has contested the complaint stating that the policy was valid from 31/08/2010 to 30/08/2011 for fire and elite peril. It is stated that the seepage is not covered as indemnifiable peril. It is stated that the seepage has accrued due to careless storage of timber and elite goods and the seepage is attributable poor maintenance of building structure as such not covered under the policy.

All the allegations filed against the OP by the complainant have been denied, however, the appointment of surveyor and its report have been admitted. Further, the reliance has also been made by circular dated 01/05/1992.

“It has come to our notice that several offices are considering claims under Inundation, which are essentially due to seepage of water through walls, floor or roof. Such claims are also being sometimes recommended by surveyors. We have sought clarifications from H.D. and we reproduce hereunder their advices in this regard.”

In terms of said circular dated 01/05/1992 communication to all offices as under is made:-

“Management have advised that the word ‘Inundation’ refers to what is commonly understood, i.e. damage due to flooding through openings or accumulation of water due to blowing off of roof flowing storm etc. Water damage due to seepage of water through walls, floor or leakage through roof is caused due to poor maintenance of building. The claim arising due to seepage is hence not payable under the Fire policy.”

 

Both the parties have filed their respective evidence and written arguments.

We have considered the material placed before us and the arguments of the parties with relevance provisions of law.

As per the report of the surveyor, the complainant has the valid policy for the relevant period. It is also mentioned in the surveyor report that as against the sum insured of Rs. 01,50,00,000/-, the value at risk of Rs. 01,94,99,341.13/- and the insured was found under insured as on the date of loss and would bear the lose proportionately. It is also mentioned therein, that the stock of ply board allegedly damaged could be utilized after cutting the bottom portion of the stocks, keeping in view, the damaged portion of 10% of the ply board would have to be cut to make the same as saleable in the market, further, due to the change in the standard size after cutting the ply board will have to be sold on discount.

In view of the same, the surveyor assessed the loss as 20% in the water damaged ply board. The net loss assessed by the surveyor has been quantified Rs. 04,85,017/-.

So far as, the surveyor reappointed by the OP, the same in our considered view does not confo rm to the policy clause as the same has not been referred by the OP as part of the policy documents. Furthermore, the surveyor has categorically mentioned in its report under the head “Cause of Loss” that

“During our visits for survey, enquiries were made by us to ascertain the reason for accumulation of water in the basement of the premises. On the basis of our enquiries, it appears that the water table in Ashram area had risen due to heavy rain fall in the capital in the month of Sept, 2010. Due to rise in the water table, water in the soil started coming out, and got accumulated in the basement of the premises.

The insured had no control on the water table, and accumulation of water in the basement being unforeseen, and accidental, the loss due to inundation is indemnifiable under the scope of policy, availed by the insured.”

             In view of the above discussions we hold the OP to be deficient in service for not paying the claim as  per policy. We therefore,                 direct the OP as under:-

1. To pay sum of Rs. 04,85,017/- along with 9% interest from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 27/07/2012 till the date of payment.

 

2. To pay Rs. 30,000/- as litigation charges, harassment and mental agony etc.

 

A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.

Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in.

File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on 31/08/2020

 

                                                     (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                                                 PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                             (H M VYAS)

                                                                     MEMBER