BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

1)  Vinod Mittal M.D M/s Chandigarh Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. a duly Registered Company having its office at Plot.128/1 Indl. Area, Phase I, U.T, Chandigarh.

2)  M/s Chandigarh Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. a duly Registered Company being represented through its M.D. Sh. Vinod Mittal, having its office at Plot.128/1 Indl. Area, Phase I, U.T, Chandigarh.

…..Complainants

                           V E R S U S

1)  M/s National Insurance Company Ltd. through its Managing Director Office at 3, Middleton Street Kolkata, 700071.

2)  Regional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., office at SCO No. 337-340, Sector 35, U.T, Chandigarh.

                                  ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

              SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA  MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Harish Bansal, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Jagtar Kureel, Adv. for OPs

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, the complainant has a business of manufacturing wheat products. The complainant got their stock insured to the extent of Rs.70 lacs from OPs vide insurance policy valid from 8.05.08 upto 7.05.09. That on 4.08.08 due to heavy rain in Chandigarh the water entered into the premises of the complainant and there occurred a severe loss to the stock of the complainant lying at the Flour Mill. The complainant stated that on the very next day the loss caused to the stocks in the Flour Mill was informed to the OPs.  Thereafter, OPs sent a surveyor to assess the loss caused to the stock, in the Mill premises. As per the complainant the stock lying and stored in the Mill premises was valued at Rs.35.79 lacs against the insured sum of Rs. 70.00 lacs and  the loss assessed by the surveyor was to the extent of approximately Rs. 2.45 lacs after adjustment of salvage. The complainant further mentioned that during the procurement season of wheat the complainant took separate Godown i.e Godown no.34, Indl. Area Phase I, Chandigarh on rent on temporary basis upto 30.08.08, for storage of the stocks against taking different/separate polices/declaration polices for which different premium for different policies has been paid. As per the complainant these two places were different and the insured places were also different but the surveyor while assessing the loss clubbed the stocks lying at two different places but the information of  loss of stocks due to rain to the OPs was given for plot no. 128/1, Phase I, Chandigarh only. The complainant further stated that on 31.03.09, after repeated reminders, for 7 months, he received a cheque of low value i.e. Rs.1,04,230/- from the OPs against the assessed loss of Rs.2.45 lacs(after adjusting salvage). The complainant approached the OPs and came to know that the surveyor has deducted some amount on account of under insurance in his report and to clarify this the surveyor clubbed the stocks of Godown no.34 with the stock of insured place i.e. Plot no. 128/1 by which the value of stock after clubbing came to Rs. 120 lacs. The complainant alleged that the OPs have intentionally paid the less amount of Rs. 1,40,770/- (i.e. Rs. 2,45,000/- - Rs. 1,04,230/-).  Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and prayed that OPs be directed to pay the balance amount costs of litigation and compensation towards mental agony and harassment.

2.             In their written reply both the OPs have admitted the factual matrix of the case. OPs stated that the loss of the stocks due to heavy rain was intimated to the OPs by complainant no.2 and not by complainant no. 1. The insurance policy was given to complainant no. 2 and no insurance policy was given in the name of complainant no.1 and further pleaded for dismissal of the complaint of complainant no.1. OPs admitted that the surveyor was shown the premises of the loss but denied that the surveyor assessed the loss of Rs.2.45 lacs and stated that the surveyor assessed the liability of the loss of Rs.1,09,264/- but after finding that the liability was under insurance it was worked out accordingly. OPs further stated that complainant no. 2 has not taken separate insurance for the stock lying at plot no.128/1 and plot no.34, hence, all the stocks lying at both the plots were considered to be one for taking the total value. OPs stated that it was a case of under insurance as the insurance was availed for Rs.70 lacs only whereas,  as per the trading account provided by the complainant, the value of the stocks as per bank was Rs.1,34,89,421/- and the stock of both places were common and were moved from one place to another. OPs further stated that they had already paid a sum of Rs.1,04,230/- to the  complainant no. 2,  for which he was entitled after adjusting the premium for reinstatement of the sum assured  after the assessment of loss as assessed by the surveyor.  OPs further added that before settlement of the dispute the complainant no.2 was informed through letter dated 26.03.09, that his claim has been approved for Rs.1,09,264/- as a full and final payment towards the loss.  In response to that the complainant sent discharge voucher without any protest and of its own free will.   Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.             We have heard the parties and have also perused the record. 

5.             The entire dispute has arisen due to the reason that the OPs have clubbed the stocks lying at the mill situated at 128/1, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh  and the Godown  situated at Plot no. 34, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh.  Needless to mention that the two places are distinct in identity and far apart from each other. These are being insured separately.  Annexure A-3 is the Insurance Policy showing that the stocks worth Rs.70 lacs lying at the floor mill namely 128/1, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh, alone was insured with the OP.  Annexure–4 shows the value of the stocks on 4.08.08 to be Rs.35.79 lacs.  Annexure A-5 is the stocks statement showing that the total stocks lying at the floor mill was Rs.47.59 lacs.  Earlier the stocks lying in the Godown at Plot no. 34, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh was also insured for the period from 25.05.07 to 24.05.08.  The complainant has alleged that the stocks lying at the said place was valued Rs.85.40 lacs and the same had been insured for Rs.1,55,00,000/-.  The OPs therefore went wrong in clubbing the two stocks which were lying at different places and were being insured separately though during the period of the present insurance the stocks lying at the Godown had not been insured.  The OPs have not produced any evidence to suggest if they had insured the stocks lying at the Godown also. Had it been the case then we could say that the value of the stocks lying at the floor mill and the Godown was more than Rs. 70 lacs and therefore it could be a case of under insurance, but it is not so.

6.           The Learned Counsel for the OP has relied upon the report Annexure R-3 of the surveyor vide which there was only “some apprehension” that the insured have got both the locations covered under a single policy but apart from the apprehension there is no evidence or proof to that effect.   It was specifically admitted in annexure R-3 that stocks worth Rs.42.59 lacs were lying at their premises at plot no. 128/1, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh and the remaining stocks worth Rs.85.40 were lying at the Godown in Plot no. 34 Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh.  The OPs cannot go beyond the terms of the policy nor could the complainant claim damages from the OPs, had the stocks lying at the Godown were damaged.

7.           We are therefore of the opinion that the apprehension shown by the surveyor in annexure R-3 which was issued long after he submitted the survey report annexure R-2, cannot be accepted as correct.

8.           The survey report annexure R-2 shows that the maximum liability of the insurer was Rs.2,10,569.  The OPs have paid the complainant a sum of Rs.1,09,264/-.  The contention of the OPs that this amount was received by the complainant in full and final settlement of his own claim is not proved by any document. Annexure R-1 is the receipt issued by the complainant but this fact is missing therefrom.  The mere receipt of the part payment would not disentitle the complainant, to claim the remaining amount from the OPs. 

9.           In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present compliant succeeds.  The same is accordingly allowed.  The OPs are directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,01,305/- within 30 days along with interest @12% p.a. with effect from 3.11.08 (one month after the report annexure R-2) and Rs. 5,000/- as costs of litigation till the amount is paid to the complainant alongwith litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.