Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 147 / 2007

1)           INDO DESIGNERS,

172/10/6, Madhusudan Pal Chowdhury Lane,

Howrah-711 101.                                                    ---------- Complainant

1)           National Insurance Co. Ltd.,

3, Middleton Street, Kolkata-71.

2)           The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Uluberia Branch Office, Bazar Para,

3)           The Sr. Divisional Manager,

National Insurance Co. Ltd.,

22, G.T. Road (South),

Howrah-7110101.                                                   ---------- Opposite Party

Present :        Sri S. K. Majumdar, President.

                        Sri T.K. Bhattacharya, Member

Order No.    2 3     Dated  1 2 / 0 3 / 2 0 1 0 .

The instant case arises out of the petition of Indo designers having office at 172/10/06, Sri Madhusudan Pal Chowdhury Lane, Howrah-711101 u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 against (1) National Insurance Co. Ltd., 3, Middleton Street, Kolkata-71, (2) Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Uluberia Branch Office, Bazar Para, P.S. Uluberia, Howrah-711316 and (3) Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Howrah Divisional Office, 22, G.T. Road (South), Howrah-711101 with a prayer to (i) issue notice upon the o.ps., (ii) pay Rs.10,92,275/- towards the loss in respect of repairing of machineries and factory premises which is described in schedule hereunder along with 12% interest from the date of the claim till payment, (iii) pay compensation amounting to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing harassment and sufferings and (iv) pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation cost.

          Specific case is that the complainant in order to protect any possible loss in respect of plant/machinery, furniture, fixtures and fittings and stocks, have purchased 3-policies of insurance from National Insurance Co. Ltd., viz. (i) policy no.153504/11/04/3100511 for the period from 28.2.05 to 27.2.06 covering the loss amounting to Rs.30,70,000/- for any damage occurring due to fire and allied perils to plant/machinery, furniture, fixtures, fittings and stocks, (ii) policy no.153504/11/04/3100512 for the period from 28.2.05 to 27.2.06 covering loss of Rs.1,25,000/- for any damage occurring due to fire and allied perils to the generator set and (iii) policy no.153504/11/-4/3100424 for the period from 21.1.05 to 20.1.06 covering Rs.1,23,000/-for any damage occurring due to fire and allied perils to engineering items required for manufacturing and cooling and preheating system, etc. on the account of Sr. G.M., Ordinance Factory, Medak.

          Due to heavy rainfall from 18.10.05 to 22.10.05 the factory of the complainant was completely water logged and due to such water logging the stocks and machineries and the premises of the factory itself were heavily affected and damaged and destroyed.

          Owing to this catastrophe, the complainant immediately informed the matter to the o.ps, the insurance company in order to assess the loss thereof (annex-copy of letter dt.22.10.05 of the complainant addressed to the o.p, running page 59-60 of the petition of complaint).

          The insurance company, the o.p., on receipt of this information from the complainant appointed a surveyor, viz. Mr. B.K. Sarkar for assessing the loss. 

          The said surveyor visited the factory premises on several occasions during the water logging state and also thereafter which was evident from the surveyor’s report dt.8.3.06 (annex-C of affidavit in opposition of the o.p.).

          At the behest of the surveyor, the stagnant water of the factory was pumped out and thereafter on his permission, the repairing works of the machinery and the factory premises were taken up and he supervised the work from time to time.

          The complainant subsequently submitted the claim on 23.11.05 for such loss in respect of repairing and maintenance of the machinery and factory premises and stocks (annex-claim form attached with the petition of complaint, running page 61-64).

          But the insurance company, the o.ps., denied the claim on the ground that the address of some of the issuing persons of the bills related to the repair work of the machineries and premises of the factory were not traceable and as such, the complainant could not be entitled to get any claim (annex-letter dt.7.7.06 of the o.p, annex-A of evidence on affidavit of the o.p.).

          The complainant on receipt of the said letter of the o.ps., mailed a reply stating that all the repairing jobs were done under the supervision of the surveyor appointed by the o.p. and as such, the question of fraud in respect of repair bills did not stand at all.

          The surveyor in his report dt.8.3.06 after surveying everything from the stage of devastation to recovery opined that the underwriter’s net liability under all three aforementioned policies (A+B+C) works out to be Rs.11,84,833/- (annex-‘c’ of affidavit of opposition of o.p.).

          Subsequently, the Chief Manager of the o.p. verbally informed the complainant that the matter in question was referred to Kolkata Regional Office no.II for their consideration and doing the needful.

          But thereafter, the o.p. did not make any correspondent about the settlement of the claim.

          Finding no other alternative, the complainant issued a notice through his advocate. But no response was observed from the o.ps. 

          Hence, the instant case was initiated against the o.ps. u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 by the complainant for redress.

Decision with reasons:

          Perused the pleadings of complainant and o.p., evidence on affidavit of both the complainant and o.ps., BNA of both the parties and documents on record.

          It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased three policies noted above from National Insurance Co. Ltd. to indemnify the possible loss due to fire and allied perils.

          But the surveyor in question had to give his opinion after going through every pros and cons of the matter and on going through the merits of the instant case.

          He after having thorough survey, gave his opinion that the “underwriter’s net liability under all three policies (i), (ii) & (iii), is Rs.11,84,833/- (annex-‘c’ of evidence on affidavit of o.p.)

          According to surveyor’s report, the net loss as assessed by him are as follows :

   (Policy no.153504/11/04/310000511)

    (Policy no.153504/11/04/3100000512)

   (Policy no.153504/11/04/3100000424)

                                                                      _______________

                                                                      =============

          The assessed loss under this policy ‘C’ is payable to the Sr. General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Medok through the insured.

          Surprising to note that the report of the surveyor who was appointed by the o.ps, was not relied upon and ignoring his report dt.8.3.06 (annex-c of evidence on affidavit of o.p.), the o.ps. repudiated the claim of the complainant on flimsy ground.

          In this connection, the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case (C.P) p.1187 reported in CTJ, p-33 of December, 2009 is worth mentioning which is as follows – “Insurance companies should not adopt an attitude of avoiding payments of the genuine and bona fide claims of the insured on one pretext or the other. This attitude puts a serious question mark on their credibility and trustworthiness. By adopting an honest approach, they can save enormous litigation costs and interest liability”.

          In another case, Hon’ble Supreme Court observes that “Insurance surveyor/surveyors are appointed by an insurance company under the provisions of the Insurance Act. Their reports are to be given due importance and there should be sufficient grounds for not agreeing with the assessment made by them”. (Supreme Court) (CP), p.1190 reported in CTJ p.33 of December, 2009.

          This apart, “A public sector insurance company (like o.p) which is controlled by the Government of India is a ‘state’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. One would at least expect equality and fair play on their part”. ((NCDRC) p.532 reported in CTJ p.24 of December, 2009.

          Here, in the instant case this act of repudiation of the claim of the complainant in spite of the surveyor’s report in respect of the assessed net loss is nothing but an attempt to avoid payments of the genuine and bona fide claims of the insured on flimsy ground, though the o.p. is a public sector insurance company.

          Considering all the points discussed above, we are of the opinion the complainant by his written and oral submission and from the documents on record succeeds the case.

          Hence, ordered,

          That the o.ps. are directed jointly and/or severally to pay (i) Rs.10,92,275/- (Rupees ten lakhs ninety two thousand two hundred seventy five) only along with interest @10% p.a. from the date of filing of claim, i.e. from 23/11/2005 to the complainant as prayed towards the indemnification of loss caused by heavy rain, though the net loss as assessed by the surveyor appointed by the o.ps. is Rs.11,84,833/- (Rupees eleven lakhs eighty four thousand eight hundred thirty three) only within thirty days from the date of communication of this order and in default, the o.p. is to pay interest @ 10% p.a. on accrued amount till its full recovery, (ii) pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only as compensation for unnecessary harassment and sufferings of the complainant due to inhuman and lackadaisical attitude of the o.p. within thirty days from the date of communication of this order and in default, the o.p. is to pay interest          @ 10% p.a. till its full recovery, and (iii) pay litigation cost of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only within thirty days from the date of communication of this order and in default, the o.p. is to pay interest @ 10% p.a. till its full recovery.

          The complainant is also directed to make payment of Rs.1,00,700/- (Rupees one lakh seven hundred) only to the Sr. General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Medak within thirty days from the date of receipt of the payment from the o.ps. towards indemnification of his loss and in default, the amount will carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till full payment.

          Fees paid are correct.

          The case is thus disposed of from this Forum.

          Supply certified copy of this order to the parties on receipt of prescribed fees.