Haryana

StateCommission

CC/23/2024

M/S GIRI RAJ TEXTILE INDUSTRIES - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATIONAL INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD - Opp.Party(s)

SUDHIR GUPTA

09 Oct 2024

ORDER

 

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Institution:04.10.2016

                Date of final hearing:06.09.2024

                                                Date of pronouncement:09.10.2024

 

Consumer Complaint No.23 of 2024 in

Consumer Complaint No.306 of 2016

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

1.      M/s Giri Raj Textile Industries near Prachin Shiv Mandir besides  Yadunandan Home Furnishing, Des Raj Colony, Panipat (Haryana) through its prop. Ram Niwas Goel.

2.      Ram Niwas Goel, Prop. M/s giri Raj Textile Industries near Prachin Shiv Mandir besides Yadunandan Home Furnishing, Des Raj Colony, Panipat (Haryana).

…..Complainants

Versus

 

National India Assurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office (353900), near S.D. College, G.T.Road, Panipat 132103 (Haryana).

                   …..Opposite Party

CORAM:   Mr. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member.

Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

 

Present:-    Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, counsel for complainants.

Mr. R.C. Gupta, counsel opposite party.

 

O R D E R

 

PER: S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

                    Consumer Complaint No.306 of 2016 was filed by the present complainants before this Commission, which was dismissed vide order dated 21.09.2016. Thereafter, Complainants filed First Appeal No.2294 of 2018 before Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against the order dated 21.09.2016 passed by this Commission and the Hon’ble National Commission vide its order dated  22.07.2024 remanded back the matter with directions to  decide it afresh on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

2.                The brief facts giving rise to the present complaint are that the complainants were engaged in the manufacturing to Chinnle Yarn.  Complainants used to purchase raw material i.e. polyster yarn and convert the same into chinnle yarn. Complainant’s firm was insured with the opposite party (‘OP’) for a sum of Rs.78,25,000/- for all the stock i.e. ready as well as raw material as well as the building.  Insurance policy was valid from 21.05.2015 to 20.05.2016. An amount of Rs.9,936/- as premium was paid to OP and unfortunately on 22.03.2016 at about 06.30 P.M, a fire broke out due to short circuit in the godown situated at first floor of the factory premises of complainants.  As per complainants, they suffered a loss of Rs.50,00,000/- due to said fire incident.  DDR was lodged on 20.04.2016 in Police Station, City, Panipat and intimation was also given to the insurance company (OP) on 23.03.2016.  Surveyor was appointed by the OP who inspected the premises on 23.03.2016 and demanded required documents from complainants, which were submitted by the complainants.  As per complainants, on 29.03.2016 they submitted the estimate of loss of Rs.51,43,757/- with the OP, but the surveyor assessed the loss on very lower side i.e. Rs.12,28,212/- only.  The complainants requested the OP to release the amount, but, all in vain.  It was alleged that The complainants was forced to accept the amount of Rs.12,28,212/- as offered by OP on account of loss incurred due to fire. The acts and deeds of OP amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

3.                Upon notice, OPs appeared before this Commission and submitted their written version by taking preliminary objections, regarding the commercial use, abuse the process of law etc. Apart from this, on merits, it was submitted that the intimation about the fire was reported to OP, but there was, however, a delay of 28 days in lodging the DDR, which clearly shows that complainants have manipulated number of things including documents so as to inflate the claim unreasonably. It was further submitted that upon intimation of fire, surveyor was appointed by OP and it was admitted by complainants that surveyor was prompt to visit the spot and assessed the loss in close coordination with him and his representatives from time to time. Surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.12,28,212/- and complainants  accepted the same through consent letter dated 18.07.2016 as full and final settlement.  Thus, there was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of the OPs.

4.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the parties, the complainants in their evidence has tendered the affidavit Ex.CA vide which he has reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint and further tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-15 and closed his evidence.

5.                On the other hand in order to rebut the evidence led on behalf of the complainants the OP had also tendered affidavit Ex.RA that of Mr. S.K.Singla Chartered Accountant, Surveyors loss assessors and investigator and also tendered documents Ex.R-1  to R-3 and closed its evidence.

6.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Inderjit Sharma, learned counsel for the complainants as well as Mr. R.C. Gupta, learned counsel for OP.  With their kind assistance the entire record including documentary evidence as well as the evidence led during the proceedings of the complaint had also been properly perused and examined.

7.                As per the contentions raised by Mr. Inderjit Sharma, learned counsel for the complainants, firm of complainants namely M/s Giriraj Textile Industries, Panipat was fully insured by the OP for a total sum of Rs.78,25,000/-  for the period w.e.f. 21.05.2015 to 20.05.2016.  The premium of Rs.9,936/- was paid to OP against the stock, building, raw material etc. and in this regard, the insurance policy (Ex.C-1) was issued.  He further argued that on 22.03.2016, at about 06.30 p.m. due to electric short circuit, a fire was broken out and there was a huge damage to the building as well as to the raw material. DDR was recorded at the Police Station, City, Panipat (Ex.C-2). The intimation was also given to the insurer who deputed Sh. S.K. Singla, Surveyor to inspect the premises and then to submit the report. The surveyor inspected the premises and all the necessary documents were supplied to him, who assessed the loss only for a sum of Rs.12,28,212/-, whereas the stock available at the relevant time was more than 50,00,000/-. He further argued that there is a damage to the building also and the loss has not been properly assessed by the surveyor. He further argued that under the compelling circumstances, the complainants executed the consent letter (Ex.R-1) and thereafter a sum of Rs.12,28,212/- was paid to complainants as full and final settlement, but immediately, thereafter complainants also submitted an objection against the payment that under the compelling circumstances, they accepted the amount, but, the actual loss was more than Rs.50,00,000/- and as such, denial of the actual loss on the part of the insurer amounts to denial of justice and as such while appreciating the entire evidence the complaint may be accepted and prays for the appropriate amount  of the actual loss caused to the complainants which is more than Rs.50,00,000/-  as well as that of a compensation for causing mental agony be allowed apart from the litigation charges.

8.           On the other hand, while unfolding the arguments, it has been argued by Mr. R.C. Gupta, the learned counsel for OP that admittedly a fire was broken out in the premises belonging to the complainants. There are reasons best known to complainants as to why the matter was reported to the police after 28 days. He further argued that upon intimation, the surveyor was immediately deputed, who assessed the loss caused to the complainants to the tune of Rs.12,28,212/-  and though the complainants have raised a demand of more than Rs.50,00,000/- it was not feasible, when all the  scientific methods have been adopted for the purpose of assessing the loss which has been accepted by the complainants by submitting their consent letter (Ex.R-1); in that eventuality, the complainants cannot raise a plea or objection at a later stage that his loss was more than Rs.50,00,000/-.  In this regard he has also admitted during his cross-examination when he appeared in the witness box as CW-1 and also tendered the affidavit Ex.CA.  During the cross-examination he has admitted to be correct that on 18.07.2016, he has given his consent for accepting the amount to the insurance company and the consent letter is Ex.R-1.  Once the consent letter has been given with free will voluntarily, without any pressure or coercion, in that eventuality, the complainants cannot be allowed legally to raise the objections that he had not been properly compensated by the insurance company.  Particularly when the surveyor has prepared his report EX.R-3 by adopting all scientific methods and as such the present complaint is nothing but is an abuse of process of law as well as court and is liable to be dismissed and prayed for the same.

9.                It is an admitted fact that insurance company(OP) issued the insurance policy (Ex.C-1), vide which, the all the material, raw material stock and building etc. of complainants were insured for a total sum of Rs.78,25,000/-. It is also an admitted fact that the premium of Rs.9936/- was paid by the complainants.  It is also an admitted fact that on 22.03.2016 at about 06.30 p.m., the fire had broken out in the godown of the complainants and as per the claim raised on behalf of the complainants, the loss of Rs.51,43,757/- had taken place. The DDR (Ex.C-2) lodged in Police Station, City, Panipat was admitted, but it is also admitted that there was a delay of a period of about one month in lodging the said DDR.  It is also an admitted fact that intimation regarding fire incident was given to the insurer immediately, upon which Mr. S. K.Singla surveyor was appointed, who assessed the loss and prepared the report (Ex.R-3), according to which he assessed the loss of Rs.12,28,212/-. It is also admitted that assessed amount has been accepted by the complainants voluntarily and consent letter (Ex.R-1) had also been executed.  However, at a later stage, complainants submitted one letter dated 05.07.2016 in the office of OP (Senior Divisional Manager, Panipat) raising certain objections regarding actual loss caused in his godown for an amount of more than Rs.50,00,000/- . Complainants-M/s Giriraj Textiles Industries & another) has filed the present complaint, vide which they sought relief to the tune of Rs.51,43,757/- minus Rs.12,28,212/-) along with other reliefs.

10.              As per the basic averment raised in the complaint and the including the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the parties, the foremost question which requires adjudication by this Commission is as to whether the present complainants are entitled to get relief as they claimed alongwith the interest or not?

11.              It is apparent from the records that the complainants obtained insurance policy (Ex.C-1) from the OP for a total sum of Rs.78,25,000/-, vide which, the all the material, raw material stock and building etc. of complainants were insured and complainants also paid premium of Rs.9936/-.  It is also apparent as well as admitted that on 22.03.2016 at about 06.30 p.m., the fire had broken out in the godown of the complainants and the stock was burnt. Complainants got lodged DDR dated 20.04.2016 (Ex.C-2) in this regard with the Police Station, City, Panipat that too after an inordinate delay of 28 days and the complainants are unable to explain the reasons of this delay. Thereafter, complainants submitted estimate of loss to the tune of Rs.51,43,757/- with the insurance company (OP) and surveyor of insurance company assessed the loss of Rs.12,28,212/- vide its report dated 03.05.2016 (Ex.R-3). It is pertinent to mention here that the said amount as assessed by surveyor was duly accepted by complainants through their consent letter dated 18.07.2016 (Ex.R-1). Moreover, a careful perusal of surveyor report clearly reveals that it is very detailed and cause of loss and justification are explained elaborately along with photographs and statements of persons.

12.              It is also pertinent to mention here from the perusal of survey report it clearly reveals that the complainants failed to provide purchase bills/sale bills and CCTV footage to the investigator/surveyor despite repeated requests. Consequently, the loss has been assessed by the surveyor on the basis of weighment of ashes and semi-burnt material and the area in which the burnt stock was lying. The surveyor has taken mix stock consisting of yarn, finished yarn and hank yarn and weighted the same and which was thereafter burnt and the ashes were weighed which comes to 125 grams per one Kg. of intact stock. Since the insured allowed the visit by the surveyor after considerable delay whereupon the ashes and semi-burnt stock could not be segregated and were thus, weighed jointly including burnt material and building material. Thus, the quantity of yarn and fabrics allowed by the surveyor in quite reasonable, logical and duly supported by facts and figures. As regards the cost of yarn and fabrics, the surveyor has allowed Rs.151/- per Kg. in respect of yarns against the claim of Rs.155/- per Kg. and of fabrics at Rs.147/- per Kg. as claimed by the insured. Accordingly, the surveyor has calculated and assessed the loss of Rs.12,28,212/- which has already been received by the insured. Moreover, the complainants have failed to adduce any evidence to contradict findings of the loss as assessed by the surveyor.

13.              In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the surveyor report dated 03.05.2016 (Ex.R-3) is logical, well-reasoned and comprehensive and the insurance company has rightly assessed the loss and paid the amount as assessed by its surveyor/investigator. Hence, the present complaint is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the complaint is ordered to be dismissed.

14.    Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

15.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for perusal of the parties.

16.              File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

 

Pronounced on 09^th October, 2024

 

                                                                        S.C Kaushik,            Naresh Katyal

Member                     Judicial Member

Addl. Bench             Addl. Bench