Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/838/2022

M/S SWASTIK PROCESSORS - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD - Opp.Party(s)

MUNISH GOEL

03 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/838/2022
Date of Institution	:	29.9.2022
Date of Decision	:	3/5/2024

 

M/s Swastik Processors having their factory at Village Behra Tehsil Dera Bassi District SAS Nagar, Punjab through its Partner Mr. Shailendra Kumar

Present Postal Address of M/s Swastik Processors

M/s Swastik Processor C/o Shailender Kumar, Flat No 170, Chandigarh Apartment, Barwala Road, DeraBassi-1401507

.Complainant

 

VERSUS

1. National Insurance Company Ltd., Chandigarh Division, 2nd Floor, SCO-133-135, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017 through its Regional Manager/Branch Manager/Manager/Authorized Signatory

2. National Insurance Company Ltd. having its registered office at 3 Middleton Street, Kolkata-700071 through its ChiefManager/RegionalManager/BranchManager/Manager/Authorized Signatory

3. IDBI Bank Limited, Office at SCO 55-56-57, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160018 through its Chief Manager/RegionalManager/Branch Manager/Manager/Authorized Signatory.

.... Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate for complainant.
	:	Sh. Paras Money Goyal, Advocate for OPs No.1&2
	:	Ram Pal Kohle, Advocate for Sh. Tejinder K. Joshi, Advocate for OP No.3 (OP No.3 exparte)

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, Member

     Briefly stated the complainant obtained insurance policy from the OPs No.1&2 for covering the risk with regard to the building, plant and machinery, electrical installation and stocks of raw material and finished goods. The insurance company duly issued the policy no. 422200111810000013 for the period 13.04.2018 to 12.04.2019 in favour of the complainant firm and paid premium amount of Rs.43,243/-. It is alleged that the OPs insurance company issued the policy without terms and conditions. Unfortunately on 27.03.2019, major fire took place in the premises of the complainant and the complainant suffered huge loss on account of the said fire. The complainant duly informed the police and also the fire brigade. The DDR was recorded on 30.03.2019. The matter was also reported in the various newspapers. The copy of the newspaper is enclosed herewith as Ex. C/8 and C/9. The fire brigade also submitted their report dated 01.04.2019. It has been duly mentioned in the Fire Brigade report that the complainant had suffered a loss of around 2.5 crores approximately. The complainant immediately informed the opposite parties with regard to fire in his premises. The complainant duly sent an email dated 27.03.2019 to the opposite parties and intimated them. The complainant also requested the OPs insurance company to register the claim and to appoint the surveyor immediately. The complainant also sent a letter alongwith its email dated 29.03.2019 to Anurag Chahal (Manager of OP No.1 and 2) and duly informed the opposite parties that the fire had occurred in their factory premises at Derabassi on 27.03.2019 at around 12:00 noon. It has been also mentioned that the complainant firm is a cotton waste processing unit and the cause of loss was material caught fire due to short circuit and spread in all over the material in progress, machines, equipments, stock and building. The complainant also mentioned that they duly called the fire brigade and six vehicles came at the site and plenty of water was poured to douse the fire but the fire was so extensive but all material was engulfed and machines and buildings were badly damaged. The complainant duly mentioned that they had suffered the loss to the tune of Rs. 2.6 crores in the said fire. That the Insurance Company duly sent Sh. Sukrat Bhardwaj at the site and he asked the complainant to supply certain documents. Thereafter, the complainant duly provided all those documents alongwith their letter dated 10.4.2019.  Thereafter the OPs insurance company appointed Duggal Gupta Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor to submit his preliminary survey report and the said surveyor submitted his report dated 19.4.2019.  The complainant thereafter filed his claim to the tune of Rs.2,63,39,872/-. The insurance company also appointed Puri Crawford Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor Indian Ltd. for assessment of loss the said surveyor sought various documents from the complainant and the complainant duly provided all the documents as sought by the surveyor  on 27.5.2019.  Thereafter the surveyor submitted his report dated 5.2.2020 and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,68,68,000/- however later on submitted addendum to his 1^st report on 9.7.2020  and reduced the loss assessed to the tune of Rs.1,57,77,320/- . The complainant  approached the OPs to release the amount as assessed by the surveyor  but the Ops instead of releasing the same appointed another surveyor namely Sh. Lokesh Kumar Anand and thereafter continued to appoint surveyor one after one and did not settle the claim of the complainant till date. Resultantly the complainant sent legal notice dated 23.8.2021 to the insurance company but to no avail. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Parties NO.1&2 in their reply stated that the present complaint is pre-mature and the complainant is guilty of not co-operating with the opposite party. The opposite party on number of occasions have requested the complainant for supplying various documents and complete information however, the complainant has chose not to co- operate with the investigator/ surveyor appointed by the opposite party as such the opposite party is still investigating the claim of the complainant and the complainant rather than co-operating with the opposite party has filed the present complaint. The answering opposite parties had appointed Niraj Jain as surveyor and the said surveyor by virtue of letter dated 01.08.2022 had requested the complainant to supply various documents. Thereafter the reminder dated 16.08.2022 sent to the complainant. The surveyor appointed by the company namely Neeraj Jain vide his mail dated 19.09.2022 informed the company that the complainant is not co- operating and has not supplied any document and is not responding to the phone calls or emails sent to them. The Ops sent various reminders to the complainant but he did not supply the requisite documents. All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. OP  No.3 in its reply stated that it has nothing to do with the insurance claim of the complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed against it. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4. However, since OP No.3 failed to appear to file evidence, hence, it was proceeded against exparte on 13.3.2023.
5. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
6. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
8. The main grievance of the complainant is that inspite of having proper fire insurance cover his legitimate claim has not yet been paid by the Ops No.1&2 after the damage due to fire in the premises of the complainant.
9. On perusal of file it is observed that after the report of fire incidence OP 1&2 had sent Sh. Sukrat Bhardwaj at the site and asked the complainant to supply certain documents. It is also observed that OP insurance company appointed Sh. Duggal Gupta  insurance surveyor and loss assessor to submit his preliminary survey report which was submitted on 19.4.2019. The insurance company also appointed Puri Crawford Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor Indian Ltd. for assessment of loss the said surveyor sought various documents from the complainant and the complainant duly provided all the documents as sought by the surveyor  on 27.5.2019.  Thereafter the surveyor submitted his report dated 5.2.2020 and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,68,68,000/- however later on submitted addendum to his 1^st report on 9.7.2020  and reduced the loss assessed to the tune of Rs.1,57,77,320/- .
10. On perusal of  Annexure OP-1 to OP-10, it is observed that the OPs No.1&2  have again requested the complainant to supply various documents and information to investigate and process the claim to the newly appointed another surveyor Sh. Lokesh Kumar Anand. We fail to understand what was the necessity of appointment of another surveyor when the detailed survey report and assessment of loss has already been carried out by the earlier surveyor Puri Crawford Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor Indian Ltd, appointed by the insurance company itself. To our mind the OP insurance company is trying to linger on the matter by appointing surveyors time and again. As per detailed survey report the loss was assessed to the tune of Rs.1,57,77,320/-  by the surveyor Puri Crawford Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor Indian Ltd which the insurance company is liable to pay to the complainant as per settled law. 
11. In case titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rabindra Narayan I (2010) CPJ 80 (NC) it is held as under:-

“The Report submitted by the Surveyor is an important piece of evidence and has to be given due weight and relied upon until and unless it is proved by some cogent and reliable evidence that the Report submitted could not be relied upon.”

 

12. The Hon’ble National recently in case titled as Oriental Insurance Co. ltd vs. Arss Infrastructure Project Ltd. II (2023) CPJ 468 (NC) held as under:-

“(i) Insurance — Surveyors’ report — Survey and investigation are one of fundamentals in settling claim, and cannot and should not be disregarded or dismissed without cogent reasons, though it also goes concomitantly that survey or investigation should be convincing and pass test of credence in scrutiny — State Commission has not gone into contents of surveyors’ reports at all on ground that reports were filed belatedly before it — Reports were in any case available before State Commission and as such it ought to have examined their contents rather than dismissing them outright — Depending upon circumstances State Commission could have even imposed terms including cost for belatedly filing reports but to treat them as suspicious and to perfunctorily dismiss them outright merely because they were filed belatedly was not approach either justified or called for — No need to examine surveyors’ reports at this stage at any great length since both parties agree that settlement may be made on basis of respective surveyor’s assessment of actual loss in each case.”

 

13. The  Hon’ble National Commission further in case titled as Detco Textiles Pvt . Ltd. versus New India Assurance Company Ltd. & anr. II (2023) CPJ 535 (NC) held as under:-

“The Surveyor conducted a very detailed inspection of the premises and assessed the loss after due verification of documents. He assessed the total loss to the building, plant & machinery and furniture etc. at Rs.11,21,18,099/- after making necessary deductions of Rs.5,605,905/- towards excess clause and taking care of the process charges, debris removal, architects fee and goods held in trust arrived at the net adjusted loss of Rs.10,65,12,194/-. For every item, the Surveyor had explained the basis of arriving at the amount. The Complainant on the other hand had not placed any evidence to establish that the assessment made by the Surveyor was incorrect. The Complainant, therefore, cannot be allowed the amount beyond the assessment of the Surveyor. We see no reason not to agree with the assessment made by the Surveyor.”

 

14. As held above the surveyor report is an important piece of evidence and has to be given due weightage and can only be ignored if there is any other cogent evidence otherwise, which the complainant has failed to lead by way of any concrete evidence, hence, the complainant is entitled for the amount assessed by the surveyor i.e. Rs. Rs.1,57,77,320/-
15. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs No.1&2 are directed as under :-

1. to pay claim amount of ₹ Rs.1,57,77,320/-  to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from date of filing of the complaint  till realization.
2.  to pay an amount of ₹1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

 

5.  This order be complied with by the OPs No. 1&2 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.

6. Complaint qua OP No.3 stands dismissed.

7.   Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.

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

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member   Sd/-
3/5/2024			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member