Haryana

StateCommission

CC/8/2015

SURYA TIMBER - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL INSURANC CO. - Opp.Party(s)

HEMAN AGGARWAL

14 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                      

                             Consumer Complaint No.     08 of 2015

                                      Date of Institution                  23.01.2015

                                       Date of Decision                             14.01.2016

 

 

Surya Timber, Saharanpur Road, Yamuna Nagar, through its Proprietor Sh. S.K. Mittal.

                                      Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Near Madhu Cinema, Jagadhari Road, Yamuna Nagar through its Manager.

 

2.      Oriental Insurance Company Limited, LIC Building, 2^nd Floor, Jagadhari Road, Ambala Cantt through its Regional Manager.

 

3.      Oriental Insurance Company Limited, A-25/27, Asif Ali Road, New Delhi through its General Manager.

Opposite Parties

4.      Bank of India, Yamuna Nagar, through its Manager.

Performa opposite party

 

 

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

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                                                                                                               

 

Argued by:          Sh. Hemen Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant.

                             Sh. D.C. Kumar, Advocate for the opposite parties No.1 to 3.

                             (Service of opposite party No.4 dispensed with vide order dated 01^st April, 2015).

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J,

 

          Surya Timber, Yamuna Nagar–complainant has filed this complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘Act’) against Oriental Insurance Company Limited (Insurance Company) and Bank of India-opposite parties seeking directions to them to pay Rs.27 lacs alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date it became due till its payment; Rs.2 lac towards mental agony etc; Rs.1 lac on account of deficiency in service and Rs.33,000/- litigation expenses.

2.      The complainant purchased Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy (Exhibit C-1) from the Insurance Company for the period May 11^th, 2015 to May 10^th, 2014. The sum insured was Rs.32 lacs, that is, Rs.28,00,000/- for stock and Rs.4,00,000/- for other contents.  It has taken Cash Credit Limit of Rs.20 lac from the Bank of India- opposite party No.4.    

3.      On August 14^th, 2013 there was heavy rain.  As a result thereof, stock, that is, wood, plywood etc lying in the premises were completely damaged.  The stock lying was worth Rs.48,50,000/-.  The break up of the closing stock on the said date is mentioned in Exhibit C-4. On August 15^th, 2013, Insurance Company was informed.  The Insurance Company appointed Surveyors to assess the loss but they did not assess the loss correctly.  Police was also informed vide letter Exhibit C-5.  Daily Diary Report dated August 15^th, 2013 (Exhibit C-6) recorded in Police Station Pansara.  As per the complainant, it suffered loss to the tune of Rs.27 lacs.  Insurance Company was requested to pay the claim amount vide letters Exhibits C-7 to C-11 but it was not paid. 

4.        The Insurance Company in its reply pleaded that on receipt of the intimation, Sh. A.K. Sood, Surveyor was appointed for preliminary survey.  Thereafter, M/s B.S. Chawla and Company, Surveyors and Valuers was deputed to assess the loss of the complainant.  Sh. B.S. Chawla assessed the loss at Rs.7,82,675/- vide Addendum Report (Exhibit OP-60).  The claim was not processed because the requisite information sought by the Insurance Company from the complainant was not supplied.   

5.      The complainant, in its evidence, examined S.K. Mittal, Proprietor as CW1 and produced following documents:-

S. No.	Documents	Exhibits
1.	Insurance Policies	C-1 to C-3
2.	Break up of Closing Stock	C-4
3.	Letter written to Police by the Complainant	C-5
4.	Daily Diary Report	C-6
5.	Letters written to the Insurance Company	C-7 to C-11
6.	Photocopies of Invoices	C-12 to 47
7.	Letter dated 07th December, 2013 written to the Insurance Company	C-48

 

6.      In rebuttal, Insurance Company examined Abhas Toppo- OPW-1, Ashok Kumar Sood- OPW-2 and Sameer Aggarwal OPW-3 and produced the following documents:-

S. No.	Documents	Exhibits
1.	Insurance Policy already exhibited as Exhibit C-1	OP1
2.	Report of Sh. Ashok Sood, Surveyor	OP-2
3.	Report of Sh. B.S.Chawla, Surveyor	OP-3
4.	Letter dated 12th March, 2014	OP-4
5.	Letter dated 17th January, 2014	OP-5
6.	Report of Sh. Ashok Sood, Surveyor already exhibited as OP-2	OP-6
7.	Photographs	OP-7 to 58

 

7.      Counsel heard.  Record perused.

8.      The only question arising consideration is the quantum of loss suffered by the complainant.  

9.      To prove its case, complainant has examined S.K. Mittal –CW1 who reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint.  He has relied upon the Invoices/Cash Credit Memos Exhibit C-12 to C-47. The closing stock was shown as Rs.48,50,000/- and damage/loss Rs.27,00,000/-. 

10.    On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has relied upon the reports of two surveyors, that is, Ashok Kumar Sood and B.S. Chawla.  Sh. Ashok Kumar Sood did preliminary survey at the spot.  In his report Exhibit OP-2, Sh. Ashok Kumar Sood has stated that the lower portion of stacks of plywood, block board, face veneer, core veneer and falli lying in the main working shed of the factory sustained flood loss and were affected by flood water.  However, the stock of plywood, block board, face veneer, core veneer and falli lying in upper portion of stacks remained unaffected from flood.  He did not assess the exact loss of the stock because the same could only be ascertained after segregation of damaged stock from sound stock, which was to be exercised during final survey.  The qualification of loss was not carried out by him.  Sh. B.S. Chawla assessed the loss vide two reports Exhibit OP-59 and OP-60 respectively.  As per report Exhibit OP-59 loss was assessed at Rs.8,93,905/- and per report Exhibit OP-60 loss was assessed at Rs.7,82,675/- because as per the cover note, total sum insured was Rs.32 lac which was inclusive of sum insured for machinery of Rs.4 lac though the sum insured for the stock was Rs.28 lac and considering the stock amount of Rs.28 lac, the supplementary report Exhibit OP-60 was submitted. 

11.    Indisputably, the sum insured was Rs.32 lacs, that is, Rs.28,00,000/- for stock and Rs.4,00,000/- for other contents. The surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company assessed the loss at Rs.7,82,675/- vide report Exhibit OP-60.  The complainant has relied upon the Invoice/Cash Credit Memo Exhibit C-13 to 47. All these Invoices/Cash Credit Memos pertain to January 2013 to July 27^th, 2013.  By placing on record these invoices/cash credit memo, the complainant wanted to prove that he suffered the loss to the tune of Rs.27 lacs.  In considered opinion of this Commission, this piece of evidence is not reliable because it pertains to the period January 2013 to July 2013. During this period of seven months can it be believed that he did not sell any material purchased by him.  The answer is of course in negative.  Not only that, per Exhibit C-12 amount of loss calculated was Rs.27 lac is only on a plain paper and own handy work of the complainant in his own favour, which is not acceptable at all.   In view of this, the best piece of evidence to assess the loss is the report Exhibit OP-60 of surveyor B.S. Chawla whereby amount of Rs.7,82,675/- was assessed. 

12.     In United India Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.  Vs. Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. & Ors., (2000) 10 SCC 19, Hon’ble Apex Court held that the surveyor’s report is an important document and non-consideration of this important document results in serious miscarriage of justice.   

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

14.    The complainant has failed to produce any evidence contrary to the report Exhibit OP-60 of the surveyor and therefore it is accepted.  Thus, the complainant is only entitled to Rs.7,82,675/- assessed by the surveyor vide report Exhibit OP-60.

15.    In view of above, the complaint is allowed. Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.7,82,675/- (Rupees Seven Lac Eighty Two Thousand and Six Hundred Seventy Five Only) to the complainant, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till the date of realization and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. The entire amount be paid by the Insurance Company within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise, it will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum, till realization.       

  

 

January 14th, 2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M.Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

 

U.K