Haryana

StateCommission

CC/28/2014

D D Spiners - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC - Opp.Party(s)

08 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Complaint No  : 28 of 2014

Date of Institution: 18.03.2014

Date of Decision : 08.12.2016

M/s D.D. Spinners Pvt. Limited, 4 KM Sone, Gohana Road, Panipat through its proprietor Sh. Suresh Garg.

Complainant

 Versus

1.      National Insurance Company Limited, Branch at G.T. Road, Panipat, through its Branch Manager.

2.      National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, 28 Scope Minar, 11^th Floor, District Centre, North Tower, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi-110092.

3.      National Insurance Company Limited, SCO 36-38, Sector-35-B, Chandigarh, through its Chief Regional Manager.

                                      Opposite Parties

 

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Sh. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Nitin Gupta, Advocate for the opposite parties.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          M/s D.D. Spinners Pvt. Ltd. through Sh. Suresh Garg-complainant filed complaint submitting that the complainant deals in trading and processing of cotton waste, tailor cuttings, hard wastes and their carding etc. besides production of yarn and their spools or winding machine and fiber machines.  The complainant was insured with National Insurance Company Limited-opposite parties vide Insurance Policy No.361700/11/09/31/000000394 from 23.11.2009 to 22.11.2010 for total sum of Rs.1,35,00,000/- which included the building, plant and machinery and accessories with stocks of all kinds.  It was stated that fire incident took place on 12.07.2010 in the insured premises of the complainant due to short-circuit and caused loss to the building, machinery and the stocks.  The complainant suffered loss to the extent of Rs.42,92,977/-.  Complainant lodged the claim on 04.08.2010. Insurance Company deputed their surveyor, who assessed the loss at Rs.18,74,530/- vide his report dated 10.08.2011.  Complainant lodged the claim with the Insurance Company.  The Insurance Company repudiated the claim vide letter dated 11.10.2012.  Hence the complainant filed complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before this Commission.  

2.      Opposite parties contested the complaint stating that on receipt of intimation from the complainant regarding the fire incident, the opposite parties appointed Rakesh Kapoor as surveyor to assess the loss.  Surveyor took photographs and assessed the loss at Rs.18,74,530/-.  However, the opposite parties repudiated the claim on the ground that upon investigation, it was found that complainant was habitual of seeking claims from different Insurance Companies in the previous years. 

3.      To prove its case, complainant examined Suresh Garg CW1. On the other hand opposite parties examined Rakesh Kapoor, surveyor as OPW-1.

4.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5.      Suresh Garg while appearing as CW-1 stated that fire incident took place on 12.07.2010 and that though the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.18,74,530/-, however the surveyor did not properly assess the loss.  On cross examination Suresh Garg admitted that he has lodged the claims for 9 times with earlier previous insurance companies. Rakesh Kapoor appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company as OPW-1 had proved his report.  Complainant to prove that he has suffered the loss, has examined himself only. Except his own submission, Suresh Garg has not led any evidence in support of his claim as to what was the extent of the loss.  Rakesh Kapoor surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs.18,84,530/- and the net loss payable at Rs.18,74,530/- after deducting Rs.10,000/- under policy excess, (vide Report Exhibit-C-2 Page-18) though the claim was repudiated by Exhibit C-4 on the ground that complainant did not disclose about his having lodged claims in previous years with previous insurance companies.  Therefore, the complainant had concealed the material fact.

6.      Indisputably there is no proposal form, which complainant may have filled up and did not disclose about the previous claims.  Rakesh Kapoor OPW-1 on being cross-examined admitted that there is no clause in the insurance policy whereby the complainant was required to inform the insurance company with regard to his earlier insurance policies and claims taken. He has also admitted that in this case, no proposal form was taken by the Insurance Company from the complainant.  The admission by the OPW-1 that there is no requirement of disclosing previous policies and the claims taken coupled with the fact that there is no proposal form was got filled up, opposite parties could not have repudiated the claim on the ground of non disclosure of earlier insurance policies and the claims.  It has been settled by now that the report of surveyor is an important piece of evidence. Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.  Vs. Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. & Ors., (2000) 10 SCC 19, held that surveyor’s report is an important document and non-consideration of this important document results in serious miscarriage of justice.  

7.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and Another, (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 507, held as under:-

“There is no disputing the fact that the surveyor/ surveyors are appointed by the insurance company under the provisions of the Insurance Act and their reports are to be given due importance and one should have sufficient grounds not to agree with the assessment made by them”.

8       In D.N.Badoni Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd, 1 (2012) CPJ 272 (NC), Hon’ble National Commission held that Surveyor’s report has significant evidentiary value unless, it is proved otherwise.

9.      The surveyor’s report cannot be ignored lightly without any caution of convenient evidence.  The surveyor has assessed net loss payable at Rs.18,74,530/-.  Complainant has not led any evidence that report of surveyor is incorrect or that loss suffered is much more. Thus, the complainant is entitled to Rs.18,74,530/- the amount assessed by the surveyor.  Complaint is allowed and complainant is awarded an amount of Rs.18,74,530/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses, to be paid within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. 

 

 

Announced 08.12.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President