BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 68 of 2013
Date of Institution : 6.3.2013
Date of Decision : 12.1.2017.
1. Namdhari Food International Pvt. Ltd., Sri Jiwan Nagar Tehsil Rania, Distt. Sirsa through its Managing Director Iqbal Singh.
….Complainant.
Versus
1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Registered & Head Office, New India Assurance Building, Mahatama Gandhi Marg, Fort Mumbai-400023 through its Zonal Manager.
2. The New India Assurance Company Limited having its Divisional Office, Near Bus Stand, Sirsa through its Divisional Manager.
3. The Divisional Manager of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office, Near Bus Stand, Sirsa.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……….……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Ravinder Monga, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
Case of complainants, in brief, is that complainant no.1 is a private limited concern and doing its business at Sri Jiwan Nagar, Distt. Sirsa and complainant no.2 is its Managing Director running a food processing unit of rice sheller etc. The complainants are taking insurance policies from the opposite parties time to time for covering their risks in regard to building structure, products, items, machinery, fixtures and fitting etc. as per the policy clauses and other features introduced by the insurance company time to time. The complainants sometime purchased the policy for whole of the factory unit and some time for the requirement. The complainants in continuation of the policies, purchased a policy No.353400/11/11/01/00000046 valid from 10.5.2011 to 9.5.2012. The open policy is covering all the items of building structure, furniture, fixtures and fittings. The ops have also charged a premium of Rs.28031/- (premium Rs.25413 plus service tax Rs.2618) vide receipt No.35340081110000000150 dated 10.5.2011 from the complainants for covering all the risks and liabilities. The detail sum insured summary was also mentioned in the policy showing for covering the risk with item to item. The complainants used to maintain and store a large quantity of paddy stock for the export purpose in the insured premises. It is further averred that all of a sudden on 21.5.2011, there was heavy stormy winds and rain in the night. Due to this iron sheets which were fixed in the unit as a shed were damaged and the goods also spoiled. The paddy stock retained in the unit was covered with tirpals which was also torn-off due to heavy winds. All the fitting and fixtures of the unit was also damaged and complainants suffered huge loss of Rs.15.64 lacs approximately of fixtures, teen shed and stock lying under the teen shed etc. The complainants immediately informed the detail of losses to opposite party no.3 through telephone and then a written application dated 24.5.2011 was also given for necessary action. Alongwith the letter of intimation they also attached a photocopy of the storm occurrence report dated 24.5.2011 obtained from the Tehsildar, Rania. Thereafter, op no.3 upon receiving the written information appointed Sh. O.P. Madaan, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Sirsa to inspect the spot and assess the actual loss who minutely inspected and assessed the loss and damages and assured that as per the assessment the amount of loss shall be released without further delay. Thereafter, the ops correspondingly required some necessary information from the complainants which were submitted without any delay. The complainant no.2 so many times telephonically and personally tried to contact with the ops and to inquire about the status of their claim but all time there was a simple and lame excuse from the side of ops with a view to postpone the matter without any cogent reason and sometimes the complainants were assured that claim is in process. However, complainants were stunned to receive impugned letter dated 24.9.2012 issued by the ops with the observation that “from the above it is clearly established that the company well within their right to close OD claim file as- “No claim” and your claim is repudiated in view of the aforesaid reasoning and this letter of repudiation is issued to your without any prejudice.” The act of opposite parties is arbitrary, illegal and against law. The complainants never intended to violate terms and conditions of the policy. The ops before issuing the policy in favour of complainant minutely and carefully inspected the spot through their responsible official, thereafter the insurance policy was issued. Now taking a evasive plea on the basis of alleged report of the Surveyor, the ops want to wriggle out from the legal liability. The complainant wrote a letter dated 30.10.2012 showing protest and requested to review the alleged decision taken in letter dated 24.9.2012 but ops did not pay any heed. It is further averred that actual loss assessed and suffered by the complainants was about Rs.20 lacs but ops assured and promised that in case the complainant shows lesser amount of loss the matter could be settled in Sirsa. The complainant was under mental tension and stress and agreed to accept the proposal of the ops and their officials but till now complainants have not received any amount from the ops and now they have flatly refused to accept any request of the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed reply submitting therein that on the receipt of intimation of the loss from the complainant, Sh. O.P. Madan, Government Approved Surveyor and Loss Assessor was deputed to assess the loss, who submitted his report on 19.3.2012 and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.6,93,738/-. He also vide letter dated 23.8.2012 reported that the damaged building was a newly erected packing hall, which was a steel fabricated, roof shed and walls covering above ten feet from the floor level on all sides but sides were not completely enclosed. Flooring was still rough and was to be finished. The said affected building hall was not complete construction, but some of the works were still to be laid down i.e. the building was incomplete. The policy does not cover risk of incomplete building and as such the claim of the complainant was repudiated on this ground vide letter of the ops dated 24.9.2012. There is no deficiency of service on the part of ops. Remaining contents of the complaint have been denied.
3. By way of evidence, complainants have tendered affidavit of complainant no.2 Ex.C1, repudiation letter dated 24.9.2012 Ex.C2, copy of standard fire and special perils policy Ex.C3, application moved to the Tehsildar Rania with storm occurrence report of Tehsildar Ex.C4, copy of application moved to ops Ex.C5, letter dated 15.6.2012 Ex.C6, letter dated 13.7.2012 Ex.C7, letter dated 30.10.2012 Ex.C8. On the other hand, opposite parties tendered affidavit of Sh. I.C. Sirohi, Senior Divisional Manager Ex.R1, copy of policy Ex.R2, repudiation letter dated 24.9.2012 Ex.R3, survey report Ex.R4, letter dated 23.8.2012 of Surveyor Ex.R5.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
5. From the copy of insurance policy Ex.C3, it is evident that complainants got insured their factory building superstructure for a sum of Rs.1,44,00000/- from 10.5.2011 to 9.5.2012 from the opposite parties and paid total premium of Rs.28031/- to them including service tax of Rs.2618/-. According to the complainants, on 21.5.2011 i.e. during the period of policy heavy stormy winds and rain came in the night due to which iron sheets which were fixed in the unit as shed were damaged and the goods lying under there were spoiled and all the fitting and fixtures of the unit was also damaged and they have suffered huge financial loss. In this regard, the Tehsildar, Rania has also confirmed occurrence of storm on the application of the complainant Ex.C4. The claim was submitted to the opposite parties by the complainants but the opposite parties have repudiated the claim of the complainants vide repudiation letter dated 24.9.2012 Ex.R3 on the basis of letter bearing reference no.NIA/8409L/12 dated 23.8.2012 of Sh. O.P. Madaan, Surveyor & Loss Assessor in continuation of his loss assessment report dated 19.3.2012. In his said letter dated 23.8.2012 Ex.R5, the Surveyor has mentioned that as regards to loss in newly erected packing hall, during his inspection at the time of my Survey, it was observed that the said affected building was a steel fabricated roof shed and wall coverings fitted above 10’ from the floor level on all sides but sides were not completely enclosed. Flooring was still rough and was to be finished. As already discussed, the said affected building hall was not a complete construction but some of the works were still to be laid down. In the said situation, the building was incomplete. The loss was assessed of the damages to the existing structure only. Present policy does not cover risk of incomplete building and suitable decision of liability may please be taken under policy terms and conditions. This letter of the said Surveyor Sh. O.P. Madaan is contrary to his own survey report dated 19.3.2012 Ex.R4 in which he has mentioned that packing hall was constructed in the year 2010. He has also mentioned in his report that insured also produced copies of purchase bills of year 2010 when the said packing hall was erected/ installed as a proof of year of building construction and considering all the aspects of damage, valuation of buildings, suitable depreciation and salvage value of damaged material and applying policy excess clause 5%, he assessed that net loss is of Rs.6,93,738/-. The Surveyor in his detailed survey & assessment report dated 19.3.2012 has no where mentioned that building was incomplete and policy does not cover risk of incomplete building. It seems that above said letter of the Surveyor dated 23.8.2012 on the basis of which the opposite parties have repudiated the claim of the complainants is an afterthought to repudiate the genuine claim of the complainants and has been procured by them after more than five months of the report dated 19.3.2012 which is wrong, illegal and not justified. The opposite parties insured the building of the complainants with structure after obtaining huge premium amount from the complainants and after due visits and now they cannot deny the genuine claim of the complainant on hyper technical grounds after obtaining a letter from the Surveyor after five months of his assessment report wherein he has already confirmed and assessed the loss. In our view, the complainants are entitled to amount of Rs.6,93,738/- as assessed by Surveyor. In absence of any other evidence that actual loss suffered by the complainants was more than the amount assessed by the Surveyor, we are of the considered opinion that the said amount of Rs.6,93,738/- will be just and proper to be paid to the complainants.
6. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.6,93,738/- to the complainants within a period of two months, failing which the complainants will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual realization. This order should be complied by all the ops jointly and severally. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 12.1.2017. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
