Haryana

StateCommission

CC/68/2013

Markendeshwar Foods & Allied Products Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Assurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

08 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                               

Complaint No     :       68 of 2013

Date of Institution:      04.09.2013

Date of Decision :      08.04.2016

 

Markendeshwar Foods & Allied Products Limited, through its Director Shri Pankil Garg, 166-167, Stone G.T. Road, Village Khanpur Kalian, Kurukshetra, Haryana.

                                      Complainant

Versus

 

1.      New India Assurance Company Limited through its Chief Managing Director, Registered Office New India Assurance Building 87 M.G. Road, Fort Mumbai-400001.      

2.      The General Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, D-0329, Atam Marg, Durga Road, Ludhiana and D-05, G.T. Road, Miller Colony, Ludhiana.

Opposite Parties

                                     

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri Bharat Bhushan-representative for complainant.

                             Shri B.S. Taunque, advocate for Opposite Parties.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

M/s Markendeshwar Foods & Allied Products Limited-Complainant, have filed the present complaint averring that it has been engaged in manufacturing of ghee and milk related products i.e. milk, skimmed milk, skimmed milk powder and butter etc.

2.      The complainant purchased four insurance policies of Standard Fire and Special Perils Exhibits C-3 to C-6 from New India Assurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties. The description of the policies is as under:-

Policy No.	Period of Insurance	Sum Insured (in Rs.)	Block/Asset. Description
36030011110100000341 (Exhibit C-3)	11.11.2011            to 10.11.2012	Two crores	On stocks of all kinds of packing material, milk, milk products, Ghee, Butter, Dairy products & other material connected to insured trade whilst lying at insured premises.
36170011110100000759 Exhibit C-4	10.01.2012        To 09.01.2013	Five crores	On stocks of all kinds of Ghee, Milk Powder, Dairy products, butter and all milk products related to insured trade whilst lying and stored in the insured factory.
36170011110100000770 (Exhibit C-5)	12.01.2012         to 11.01.2013	Four crores and sixty five thousands	On stocks of all kinds of Ghee, Milk Powder, Dairy products, butter and all milk products related to insured business and goods of similar nature finished/unfinished related to insured business at insured premises.
36170011110100000791 (Exhibit C-6)	19.01.2012         to 18.01.2013	Three crores	On stocks of all kinds of Ghee, Milk Powder, Dairy products, butter, all kinds of milk products and goods of similar nature finished/unfinished related to insured business lying at insured premises.

 

3.      The total amount insured of all the policies was Rs.14.65 crores.

4.      On February 7^th, 2012, fire broke in the insured premises. Fire Tenders were called for and the fire was extinguished. On being informed, the Police of Police Station, Pipli, registered Daily Dairy Report. The Insurance Company was also informed. The Insurance  Company appointed surveyor, who visited the insured premises and submitted report Exhibit C-17. The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.56,42,954/- after deducting the value of the salvage for the stocks as well as building. The complainant filed claim alleging that the total loss was of Rs.78,34,014/-, that is, loss to the stock of Rs.63,15,200/- and loss to building in the sum of Rs.15,18,814/-.  The Insurance Company paid only Rs.13,20,454/- to the complainant. Hence, the instant complaint.

5.      The Insurance Company-Opposite Parties, contested complaint by filing reply. It was pleaded that the stock of packing materials was covered only in policy Exhibit C-3, the total amount insured of which was Rs.2.00 crores. The complainant has claimed Rs.48,26,450/-on account of loss to packing materials in that policy but the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.42,29,024/-. After applying average clause, the value of the assessed loss was Rs.3,65,222/-. As per policy, in terms of excess clause, a sum of Rs.18,261/- was deducted and as such the adjusted loss worked out to Rs.3,46,961/-. The surveyor assessed the damage to stocks, other than packing material, to the tune of Rs.7,38,602/- and thus the total value of loss of stocks worked out to Rs.10,85,563/- (Rs.3,46,961+7,38,602/-).

6.      The complainant also claimed compensation of Rs.15,18,814/- with respect to the damage to building, whereas the loss assessed by the surveyor was of Rs.2,47,743/- and after applying excess clause to the tune of Rs.12,387/-, loss was of Rs.2,35,356/-. Thus, the total loss was worked out to Rs.13,20,919/-, out of which a sum of Rs.465/- was deducted on account of reinstatement of the premium and balance the amount of Rs.13,20,454/- was paid to the complainant. Denying the claim of the complainant, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

7.      Shri Pankil Garg, Director Markendeshwar Foods and Allied Products Limited, was examined as CW-1, who deposed that the complainant had purchased four Standard Fire and Special Perils Policies, Exhibit C-3 to Exhibit C-6, from the Insurance Company-Opposite Parties. The total sum insured for stock was Rs.1465 lacs.  On 07.02.2012, fire broke out in the insured premises.  The Insurance Company was also informed and claim of Rs.78,34,014/- was filed, that is, loss to the stock to the extent of Rs.63,15,200/- and to the building for Rs.15,18,814/-.  The Insurance Company had appointed a surveyor, who submitted report Exhibit C-17.  The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.56,42,954/- after deducting the value of the salvage for the stocks as well as building.  However, the Insurance Company paid only Rs.13,20,054/-.  Documents Exhibit C-1 to C-29 were also tendered in evidence.

8.      On the other hand, the Insurance Company examined Shri Ashok Aggarwal, Manager, Regional Office, Ludhiana, as OPW-1. It was stated by this witness that only in Insurance Policy Ex.C-3, the risk of stocks of all kinds of packing material, milk, milk products, ghee, butter, dairy products and other material connected to the insured’s trade was covered.  Affidavits Ex.RW-B was tendered in evidence.

9.      We have heard the representative for the complainant, Shri B.S. Taunque, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and perused the record.

10.    It is not disputed that the incident of fire took place on February 7^th, 2012 and the fire was extinguished by the Fire Tenders. The Insurance Company had appointed surveyor and loss assessor. The surveyor vide report Exhibit C-17, assessed the loss observing as under:-

“In this case even though the total sum insured is Rs.14.65 Crs. for all stock policies, out of this Rs.12.65 Crs have been considered to cover stocks other than packing materials and Rs.2.00 Crs. are considered as coverage for all stocks including packing material. Accordingly the adjusted loss for packing material and other stocks has been calculated separately in Ann-1A.

          In case this interpretation is followed then after application of excess and contribution the policy wise adjusted loss is given in attached Ann-A.

3.      As per policy, excess of 5% of claim amount subject to minimum of Rs.25,000 is applicable per insured per event. Thus after application of average clause and deduction of suitable excess the adjusted loss works out to Rs.13,20,919/- (Rupees Thirteeen Lac Twenty Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Only) as detailed in attached Ann-A or Rs.34,78,079/-Thirty Four Lac Seventy Eight Thousand Seventy Nine Only) as detailed in attached Ann-B depending upon whether packing material is covered only under one policy or whether is covered under all policies for stock which aspect may be decided by the insurers before settlement of the claim.”

11.    Indisputably, the Insurance Company has paid a sum of Rs.13,20,454/- to the complainant. The amount of Rs.10,85,563/- was assessed towards the value of damaged stocks and Rs.2,35,356/- for damage to packing material. After deducting Rs.454/- as re-instatement premium, the total amount of Rs.13,20,454/- was paid.

12.    The only dispute is with respect to the packing material. The authorised representative appearing for the complainant has drawn our attention to the report of the surveyor and stated that accepting the report of surveyor and taking the loss assessed by the surveyor to be correct, the complainant is still entitled to Rs.33,32,763/-.

13.    Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has stated that since the policies Exhibit C-4 to C-6 did not cover the packing material and that packing material was covered only under first policy Exhibit C-3, therefore, the complainant was not entitled to any claim qua that.

14.    Whether the packing material was covered in the subsequent three policies or not, is immaterial as the first policy Exhibit C-3 itself covered the loss to the extent of Rs.2.00 crores. The Insurance Company has not led any evidence giving break ups of coverage of each particular item.  So, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the packing material was covered only in one policy (Exhibit C-3) is not much relevant as the first policy Exhibit C-3 covers loss upto Rs.2.00 crores.

15.    Taking loss as assessed by the surveyor to be correct under the heading of packing material, the surveyor has assessed the loss of packing material at Rs.42,29,024/-. The surveyor has assessed the loss of packing material for Rs.42,29,024/-, out of which 5% is deductible under excess clause, that is, Rs.2,11,451.02. The balance comes to Rs.40,17,572.08. Payment of Rs.10,85,116/- was already paid to the complainant under the heading of packing material. Thus, the amount that remains to be paid for loss to packing material is Rs.29,32,456.08 (Rs.4017572.08 – Rs.1085116/-). So, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the complainant to the extent of Rs.29,32,456.08.

16.    In view of the above, the complaint is allowed and the Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs. 29,32,456.08 to the complainant.

 

Announced 08.04.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL