Haryana

StateCommission

A/904/2017

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRAGATI PAPERS INDUSTRIES - Opp.Party(s)

NITIN GUPTA

30 Aug 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeals No.731 and 904 of 2017

Date of Institutions: 15.06.2017 & 31.07.2017

Date of Decision: 30.08.2018

 

 

First Appeal No.731 of 2017

 

Pragati Paper Industries Limited, situated at Kala Amb, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, through its Managing Director.

 

Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      National Insurance Company Limited, registered office at 3, Middleton Street, Calcuta-700071, through its Chairman Service to be effected through Branch Manager at Naraingarh, District Ambala, Haryana.

 

2.      Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Ambala Cantt.

 

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

First Appeal No.904 of 2017

 

1.      National Insurance Company Limited, registered office at 3, Middleton Street, Calcuta-700071, through its Chairman Service to be effected through Branch Manager at Naraingarh, District Ambala, Haryana.

 

2.      Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Ambala Cantt.

 

Both the appellants now represented through the duly authorized signatory of regional office at SCO No.332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Pragati Paper Industries Limited, situated at Kala Amb, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, through its Managing Director.

 

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

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

                   Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

   

 

 

 

Argued by:          Shri Anirudh Kush, counsel for Pragati Paper Industries Limited-complainant.

                   Shri Nitin Gupta, counsel for National Insurance Company Limited-opposite parties.      

                                      

                            

O R D E R

 

 NAWAB SINGH, J. (ORAL)

 

This order disposes of afore-mentioned two appeals bearing appeal No.731 of 2017 titled ‘M/s Pragati Papers Industries Limited Versus National Insurance Company Limited and another’ and appeal No.904 of 2017 titled ‘National Insurance Company Limited and another Versus M/s Pragati Papers Industries Limited’ because these appeals have arisen out of a common order dated May 03^rd, 2017 passed in complaint No.380 of 2004/12 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (District Forum).

2.      Pragati Paper Industries Limited-complainant purchased policy (Annexure C-3) from National Insurance Company Limited-opposite parties (Insurance Company) on June 01^st, 2000. Period of insurance was June 02^nd, 2000 to June 01^st, 2001. The subject matter of insurance was the stock of rice husk lying outside the complex in open. The sum insured was Rs.6,00,000/-. On the intervening night of 20^th/21^st July, 2000, there was flash flood due to heavy rain in the area, on account of this rice husk was washed away. The complainant lodged claim with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company appointed Duggal Gupta and Associates, Surveyors and Loss Assessors. The spot was inspected. Survey report (Exhibit R-5) was submitted. The Surveyor assessed loss at Rs.48,705/-. The claim was repudiated on the ground that loss of rice husk was not covered under the policy because the loss did not occur on account of flood rather it was on account of rain.

3.      Aggrieved of the repudiation, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum. The District Forum vide impugned order dated May 03^rd, 2017 on the basis of survey report (Exhibit R-5) directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.48,705/- alongwith interest at the rate 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint viz. October 21^st, 2004 till its realization and Rs.10,000/- litigation expenses to the complainant.

4.      Dissatisfied with the order of District Forum, the complainant and the Insurance Company are in appeal before this Commission.

5.      At the outset, Shri Anirudh Kush, counsel for the complainant has fairly conceded that the complainant did not lead any cogent evidence to prove that the loss occurred was of Rs.4 lacs, as pleaded in the complaint. He has further stated that the complainant is satisfied in case the amount awarded by the District Forum be paid to it. In view of the statement, the appeal filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed.

6.      Coming now to the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised only one submission that the loss occurred was not on account of flood rather it was on account of heavy rain, which was not covered under the policy.

7.      The submission raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company is not tenable. The insured premise, where the rice husk was lying, was situated on the bank of river in Kala Amb (Himachal Pradesh). As per the report (Annexure RW1/D) of India Meteorological Department, Meteorological Centre, Shimla (HP), there was heavy rain in the area on 20^th/21^st July, 2000, which could of course result in flood particularly when the insured premise was situated on the bank of river in Kala Amb (HP). In view of this, the Insurance Company cannot be absolved from its liability to pay Rs.48,705/- (amount assessed by the Surveyor). No illegality or irregularity discernible in the impugned order passed by the District Forum. The appeals are dismissed. 

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal No.904 of 2017 be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 30.08.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

D.R.