Haryana

Karnal

CC/348/2022

M/s Garg Rice Mill - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Akaash Chawla

21 Aug 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 348 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.20.06.2022

                                                        Date of Decision:21.08.2023

 

M/s Garg Rice Mill, situated at Link Road, Taraori, Karnal-Haryana-132001 through its authorized partner Mr. Nilesh Garg.

 

                                                                       …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     SBI General Insurance Company Limited office at 46, Pusa Road, 2^nd floor, Karol Bagh, Near Metro Station, Delhi-110005, India.

2.     SBI General Insurance Company Limited, Corporate & Registered office at: Natraj, 301, Juncton of Western Express Highway & Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400069.

3.     SBI General Insurance Company Limited, SCO no.388-389, Karan Commercial Complex, First floor, B.D. International, near Guru Harikishan School, Old Char Chaman, Mughal Canal, Karnal-132001.

4.     M/s Mehta & Padamsey Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. 7, Jantar Mantar Road, Janpath, Sansad Marg Area, New Delhi-Delhi-110001.

                                                                ……Opposite parties.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before      Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.    

                Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…..Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Akash Chawla, counsel for complainant.

    Shri R.K. Chauhan, counsel for the OPs no.1 to 3.

    OP no.4 exparte (vide order dated 23.08.2022).

                    ( Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:    

                  The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant’s firm is a partnership firm in the name of M/s Garg Rice Mill, situated at Link Road, Taraori. Shri Nilesh Garg is authorized to file and maintain the present complaint on the complainant’s firm. OP no.3 has approached to the complainant to sell their insurance policy and complainant agreed to purchase the same and both the complainant and OP no.3 entered into an insurance contract and OP no.3 issued a insurance policy bearing no.0000000023397147 on 26.06.2021 with effect from 18.06.2021 to 17.06.2022. as per policy, complainant has total sum insured amounting to Rs.41,90,00,000/- which includes building including plinth, basement and additional structure, stocks and other contents and in consideration the complainant paid the premium of Rs.5,14,484/- on account of said policy. On 13.07.2021 heavy rain took place in the premises and vicinity of the complainant due to the same, complainant has suffered huge loss and on the next day i.e. 14.07.2021, complainant intimates the same to the OPs and further OPs have deputed OP no.4 IRDA Licensed Surveyors i.e. M/s Mehta & Padamsey Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. for the survey and assessment of the claim and they also visited the affected premises of the complainant and all the relevant records as desired by the surveyor was provided and furnished by the complainant which includes balance sheet, purchase from 01.04.2021 to 13.07.2021, Income Tax Return, GST Return, Audit Report, Stock Statements etc. The surveyor also made the claim bill on 13.09.2021 in favour of complainant given by the OP no.4 same are mentioned below:

Sr. No.	Particulars	Amount (In Rs.)
1.	Value of Rice (680 Bags x50KG0 Quantity Damaged 34000 Kgs @35/-	11,90,000/-
2.	Value of Rice (5472 Bags x50KG) Quantity Damaged 218880 Kg @35/-	76,60,800/-
3.	Value of Bardana (250 Bundle x50) Quantity Damaged 12500 B/S Kg @30/-	3,75,000/-
4.	Labour Charges-6152 Bags @ 10/-	61,250/-
	Grand Total	92,87,320/-

 

Out of total loss, complainant sold the salvage (which includes Rice Basmati, Damaged and Wet Rice, Jute Bardana) to third parties amounting to Rs.11,91,893/- and the same being done in the presence of representative of OP no.4. However, instead of making the payment of the loss suffered by complainant, OPs repudiated the claim of complainant, vide letter dated 12.11.2021 on the ground that requisite documents have not been provided to the OPs. Whereas all the requisite documents have been submitted to the surveyor alongwith email sent to OPs regularly and further the complainant also sends the hard copy of the documents through courier and the same has been acknowledged by OPs. The complainant also discussed the matter with the officials of the OPs namely Nitin Singh, Utpal Chatterjee, Anshu Puri and Pradeep Rawat through telephonically and emails but OPs did not reply the same. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 23.12.2021 to the OPs but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.           

2.             On notice, OPs no.1 to 3 appeared and filed its written version, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant obtained SBI General Bharat Laghu Udyam Suraksha Policy from the OPs covering building including plinth, basement and additional structures worth Rs.2,90,00,000/-, stock worth Rs.38,00,000/- and other contents Rs.1,00,00,000/- total sum insured is Rs.41,90,000,00/- at the Risk Location given in the policy certificate situated at Taraori Link Road, Karnal, Haryana and the OPs issued the policy no.0000000023397147 dated 26.06.2021 valid for the period from 18.06.2021 to 17.06.2022, subject to policy terms and conditions provided with the policy certificate. It is further pleaded that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the loss caused due to normal rain does not cover the liability, therefore, the claim is not maintainable and liable to be rejected. The loss was reported by the complainant due to rain during the night of 13/14.07.2021 and OPs acting with due diligence immediately appointed IRDA Licensed Surveyor M/s Mehta & Padamsey Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. to conduct detail survey and assess the net liability of the OPs as per the terms and conditions of policy. The surveyors are licensed and procedurally regulated by Insurance Regulatory Development Authority. In general the surveyors possess technical qualifications as specified by the IRDA, undergo practical training, apply and hold the license and to regulate licensing and working of these surveyors IRDA has formulated Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Regulations, 2000. These regulations stipulated that the surveyor shall investigate, manage, quantify, validate and deal with losses arising from any contingency and carry out the work with competence, objectivity and professional integrity by strictly adhering to the code of conduct expected from them. The abovesaid surveyor appointed by OPs no.1 to 3 is independent body, also IRDA approved and conducted the detailed survey and carried out thorough inspection in the case and made efforts to collect all the documents from the complainant as required for processing the claim but the complainant failed to cooperate and submit the required documents despite repeated demands raised by surveyor as well as the OPs through letters/emails written communications dated 17.07.2021, 19.07.2021, 21.07.2021, 23.07.2021, 24.07.2021, 16.08.2021, 18.08.2021, 19.08.2021, 23.08.2021, 02.09.2021, 04.09.2021, 10.09.2021, 11.09.2021, 13.09.2021, 17.09.2021, , 06.10.2021, 16.10.2021 and final notice dated 27.10.2021 and 30.10.2021 alongwith copies of request letter/mails dated 21.07.2021, 10.08.2021, 02.09.2021 and 14.09.2021 consequently the surveyor submitted final report dated 09.11.2021 with the OPs no.1 to 3 on 10.11.2021 thereby observing that:-

        “Conclusion on non-cooperation in quality wise segregation-

 

Based on above, it can be very clearly seen that irrespective of our sending numerous emails/calls/instructions and even insurers intervention. The insured have never cooperated in itemized, qualitywise physical verification of the identifiable damaged stock and later forced us to consider the mixed and mingled up material. As the material was losing its value, we were forced to arrange for salvage disposal approval of t he mixed and mingled up material from the competent authority and thereafter visited their affected factory premises numerous times to cross monitor for the salvage disposal”.

The surveyor further concluded as under:

Non-cooperation in submission of the information and/or documents and/or clarification-

Based on above emails, it can be very clearly seen that we sent numerous times tried/requested insured to make submission. However, irrespective of our sending numerous emails/calls/instructions and even insurers intervention. Insured did not comply with the submission and always claimed that they had completed documents submission.

On SBI banker email dated 30.10.2021, we had sent ‘final notice’ to insured vide our email on the same day itself i.e.30.10.2021 followed by letter through registered post mentioning summary of all the email exchanged till date and conclusion on non-cooperation in segregation as well as in non-submission and mentioning pendency as on date giving 7 days’ time from the date of our email i.e.07.11.2021 for submission of pendency falling which we will submit out independent report to insurers based on information and/or documents.

Insurer’s liability

However, till date of issuance of this report, we have not received complete information/documents form insured which are essential to proceed further with the loss assessment. Accordingly, we are submitting our ‘No claim’ independent report.

                It is clear from the above final report that the complainant failed to discharge the duties and liabilities on its part as provided under clause-G of the terms and conditions of policy, amounting to breach of the terms and conditions of policy, consequently the claim was closed as “No Claim” vide registered letter dated 12.11.2021. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.4 did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 23.08.2022 of the Commission.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Nilesh Garg Ex.CW1/A, copy of order dated 25.05.2022 Ex.C1, copy of authorization letter Ex.C2, copy of insurance policy Ex.C3, copy of claim Ex.C4, copies of Sale GST T/free and weight receipts Ex.C5 to C32, copy of physical verification of Garg Rice Mills Ex.C33, copy of repudiation letter dated 12.11.2021 Ex.C34, copy of courier receipt dated 12.11.2021 Ex.C35, copy of email dated 23.12.2021 Ex.C36, copy of legal notice Ex.C37,  postal receipt Ex.C38, copy of balance sheet of the year 2019, 2020 and 2021 Ex.C39, copy of stock audit report of Garg Rice Mill from July 20^th, 2021 Ex.C40, copy of stock register from 12.04.2021 to 13.07.2021 Ex.C41, copy of stock position in shed dated 31.03.2020, 31.03.2021 and 14.07.2021 Ex.C42, copy of stock position after registration in shed Ex.C43, copy of ITR of the year 2019-2020, 2020-2021, copies of GSTR Form 3B for the year 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 Ex.C45 and closed the evidence on 20.12.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Jitendra Dhabhai, Manager Legal Ex.OPW1/A, affidavit of Rajiv Gupta Ex.OPW1/B,  Special Power of Attorney Ex.OP2, copy of policy schedule Ex.OP3, copy of final survey report Ex.OP4, copy of claim form Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence on 06.7.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             In additional evidence, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence Addendum to Survey report Ex.OP6 and affidavit of Rajiv Gupta Executive Director of Mehta and Padamsey Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor Ex.OP1/C and closed the additional evidence on 02.08.2023 by suffering separate statement.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant’s firm is a partnership firm in the name of M/s Garg Rice Mill, situated at Link Road, Taraori. The complainant has purchased the insurance policy on 26.06.2021 with effect from 18.06.2021 to 17.06.2022 for a total sum insured of Rs.41,90,00,000/- which includes building including plinth, basement and additional structure, stocks and other contents. The complainant paid premium of Rs.5,14,484/- on account of said policy. On 13.07.2021 due to heavy rain, complainant has suffered huge loss and intimation in this regard was given to OPs on the next day i.e. 14.07.2021. Surveyor i.e. OP No.4 was deputed for the survey and assessment of the claim.  All the relevant records as desired by the surveyor was provided to him which includes balance sheet, purchase from 01.04.2021 to 13.07.2021, Income Tax Return, GST Return, Audit Report, Stock Statements etc. Out of total loss, complainant’s firm sold the salvage (which includes Rice Basmati, Damaged and Wet Rice, Jute Bardana) to third parties amounting to Rs.11,91,893/- and the same being done in the presence of representative of OP no.4. He further argued that instead of making the payment of the loss, OPs repudiated the claim of complainant’s firm, vide letter dated 12.11.2021 on the ground that requisite documents have not been provided to the OPs. Whereas all the requisite documents have been submitted to the surveyor alongwith email sent to OPs regularly and further the complainant’s firm also sends the hard copy of the documents through courier and the same has been acknowledged by OPs. He lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per-contra, learned counsel for the OPs while reiterating the contents of the written version has vehemently argued that complainant’s firm purchased a policy from the OPs covering building including plinth, basement and additional for total sum insured of Rs.41,90,000,00/-. He further argued that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the loss caused due to normal rain does not cover the liability, therefore, the claim is not maintainable and liable to be rejected. The loss was reported by the complainant’s firm due to rain during the night of 13/14.07.2021 and OPs acting with due diligence immediately appointed IRDA Licensed Surveyor M/s Mehta & Padamsey Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. to conduct detail survey and assess the net liability of the OPs as per the terms and conditions of policy. The surveyor conducted the detailed survey and carried out thorough inspection in the case and made efforts to collect all the documents from the complainant’s firm as required for processing the claim but the complainant’s firm failed to cooperate and submit the required documents despite repeated demands raised by surveyor as well as the OPs through letters/ emails and final notice dated 27.10.2021 and 30.10.2021 alongwith copies of request letter/mails dated 21.07.2021, 10.08.2021, 02.09.2021 and 14.09.2021 consequently the surveyor submitted final report dated 09.11.2021 and the claim was closed as “No Claim” vide registered letter dated 12.11.2021. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. He lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

11.           Admittedly, the complainant got insured his firm with the OPs for total sum insured of Rs 41,90,00,000/-. It is also admitted that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the complainant’s firm suffered a heavy loss. It is also admitted that intimation with regard to loss was given to the OPs on the very next day. It is also admitted that the OPs appointed the surveyor for assessing the loss suffered by the complainant’s firm. It is also admitted that the salvage for an amount of Rs.11,91,893/- of rice and Rs.36950/- of old bardana, were sold by the complainant’s firm in the presence of surveyor of the OPs.

12.           The claim of the complainant’s firm has been repudiated by the OPs, vide repudiation letter Ex.OP5 dated 12.11.2021, the relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-

“We are now in receipt of the survey report confirming that requisite documents/information has not been provided to SBIG/Surveyor despite request by them vide their communications dated 17.07.2021, 19.07.2021, 21.07.2021, 23.07.2021, 24.07.2021, 16.08.2021, 18.08.2021, 19.08.2021, 23.08.2021, 02.09.2021, 04.09.2021, 10.09.2021, 11.09.2021, 13.09.2021, 17.09.2021, 06.10.2021 and final notice dated 27.10.2021 and 30.10.2021 alongwith our request letter/mails dated 24.07.2021, 10.08.2021, 02.09.2021 and 14.09.2021. Since requisite documents have not been provided, despite requests, we are constrained to close subject claim in our records as No Claim”. 

13.           In the repudiation letter Ex.OP5, the OPs have alleged that the complainant’s firm had not supplied the requisite documents despite repeated letters/ emails. On the other hand, as per the complainant he had supplied all the requisite documents as and when demanded by the surveyor of the OPs. Despite closing the claim of the complainant’s firm, vide repudiation letter Ex.OP5 dated 12.11.2021, the surveyor of the OPs, during the pendency of the present complaint, has re-opened the claim file and has prepared survey report Ex.OP6 dated 19.06.2023 and assessed the net loss of Rs.36,10,345/-. The said report has been prepared without the request/ consent of the complainant’s firm, for the reason best known to the OPs. Very surprisingly, the said report has been tendered in additional evidence on 02.08.2023, when the complaint was fixed for final arguments. In the said surveyor report, the surveyor has specifically mentioned that :-

“we have revisited the limited information and documents made available to us including the documents submitted in the Court subsequently and arrived at a provisional assessment to restrict/arrive at the liability of the insurers, as under”.

14.           The complainant has tendered into evidence photocopies of the documents and the copies of the same were supplied to the OPs. In the said report, the surveyor has specifically mentioned that he revisited the limited information and documents made available with him including the documents submitted in the Court subsequently and prepared the said report. When the complainant has placed on file photocopies of the required documents as to why he has not supplied the original documents to the surveyor of the OPs. It is not possible for the surveyor to settle the claim of the complainant’s firm only on the basis of photocopies of the documents. Meaning thereby, the complainant’s firm had already supplied all the requisite documents to the surveyor of the OPs as and when demanded by him. Hence, it appears that the demand of the alleged documents is only just to harass the complainant and in order to delay the claim of the complainant’s firm. Furthermore, it is common fact that a person whose personal interest is involved in form of the huge claim amount, then, as to why, he would not supplied the requisite documents to the OPs. Hence, the plea taken by the OPs with regard to non-supplying of the requisite documents has no force.

15.            The complainant’s firm has claimed Rs.92,87,320/- vide its claim bill dated 13.09.2021, detail of the same are as under:-

 

Sr. No.	Particulars	Amount (In Rs.)
1.	Value of Rice (680 Bags x50KG0 Quantity Damaged 34000 Kgs @35/-	11,90,000/-
2.	Value of Rice (5472 Bags x50KG) Quantity Damaged 218880 Kg @35/-	76,60,800/-
3.	Value of Bardana (250 Bundle x50) Quantity Damaged 12500 B/S Kg @30/-	3,75,000/-
4.	Labour Charges-6152 Bags @ 10/-	61,250/-
	Grand Total	92,87,320/-

 

16.           The surveyor of the OPs has assessed the net adjusted loss of Rs.36,10,345/- and made deductions 30% on account of not providing the exact rates for the quality of rice, 20% deterioration on account of delay in segregation, 75% on account of old bardana and 5% on account of excess clause in the insurance policy. The provisional assessment made by the surveyor of the OPs, is reproduced as under:-            

4. Provisional assessment/adjust of loss

 We have revisited the limited information and documents made available to us including the documents submitted in the Court subsequently and arrived at a provisional assessment to restrict/ arrive at the liability of the insurers, as under:-

 

No. of bags as per the physical done and signed by the insured as on 19.08.2021	Quintals			Rate taken by insured		Amount
6152	2529			3500.00		8850800/-
Total						8850800/-
Less: The insured has taken the rates for the top quality Basmati whereas these are different qualities which are outcome of the manufacturing process and therefore, we have deducted 30% on account of not providing the exact rates for these quality of rice.						2655240/-
Total						6195560/-
Less; The insured had delayed then segregation y more than a month resulting in Deterioration on account of delay we have therefore deducted @ 20%.						1239112/-
Total						4956448/-
Less: Salvage as sold by the insured						1153095/-
Add: Cost of Bardana as claimed by the insured without support of rates.		12.500 Qty.	30 Rate		375000 Amount
Less: Deduction on account of usage as they were all used ones.			75%		281250/-
Total			93750/-
Less: Salvage as sold by the insured			36950/-
Total						3860153/-
Less: Applicable excess 5%						193008/-
Net Adjusted loss						3610345/-

 

17.           Now, the question arises for consideration is that whether deduction of 30% made by the surveyor of OPs on account of not providing the exact rates of quality of rice, is justified or not? 

18.           The surveyor of the OPs has deducted an amount of Rs.26,55,240/-i.e. 30% of Rs.88,50,800/- (provisional assessment), on account of not providing the exact rates of the quality of rice, while on the other hand, the complainant has claimed the amount only as per the exact rates of the rice. In order to prove his case, the complainant has placed on record copies of bills Ex.C4 to Ex.C33 showing the rate of rice, balance sheet Ex.C39, stock audit report Ex.C40 and Ex.C41, stock position Ex.C42 and Ex.C43. On perusal of the said documents/bills, it reveals that the complainant’s firm has claimed the amount as mentioned in the said bills/ documents. On the other hand, the OPs have failed to rebut the said bills/documents by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. The OPs have not placed on file any single documents to prove that the complainant’s firm had taken the rates of the top quality basmati, rather, the same were of different qualities of rice. The OPs should have collected the rates of rice out-coming from manufacturing process from the open market or from any other approved agency to prove its version but the OPs have failed to do so. Hence, the deduction of 30% made on account of not providing the exact rates for the quality of rice is not justified. Thus, the deduction made by the surveyor in his report Ex.OP6 is arbitrary, unjustified & biased and based on assumption and presumptions. In this regard, we relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Pradeep Kumar (2009 (6) SCALE, 253) wherein it was held that “The surveyor’s report is not the last and final word. It is not that sacrosanct that it cannot be debarred from, it is not conclusive. The approved surveyor’s report may be basis or foundation for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured but surely such report is neither binding upon the insurer nor insured.” This proposition of law was followed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sikka Papers Limited vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (III (2009) CPJ 90 (SC). The Hon’ble Chhatisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur in case titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Pukhraj Bothra, IV (2004) CPJ 615 has held that “it is true that normally the estimate of surveyor regarding loss has to be given due consideration but it cannot be said to be the last word for determination of actual loss. In the present case, we are also of the considered opinion that the surveyor has made huge deductions only to favour the opposite parties.

19.           Now, the next question arises for consideration is that whether the deduction of 20% made by the OPs on account of delay in segregation of stock is justified or not?

20.           Admittedly, the OPs had made several requests to the complainant’s firm to segregate the stock but despite several request the complainant’s firm had failed to segregate the stock from the premises and took more than one month in segregation. The complainant had made an excuse that “There is continuous rain going on, so we are unable to load and shift any stock to other godowns as there is no extra space in the same godowns” and also took several unreasonable excuses which are not justified. Hence, the surveyor of the OPs has rightly made deduction @ 20% on account of delay in segregation of stock.

21.           The next question arises for consideration is that whether deduction of 5% (i.e. Rs. 1,93,008/-) on account of excess clause in the insurance policy is justified or not?

 22.          In this regard, learned counsel for complainant submitted that it is not mandatory to deduct 5% amount from every claim amount, however, it can be deducted only in exceptional cases but in this case the OPs have wrongly deducted the said amount which is not justified. Admittedly, there is an excess clause in the insurance policy and the insurance company has right to deduct 5% of the insured amount. Since, there is a clause in the insurance policy, therefore, the OPs have right to deduct the said amount. Furthermore, other deductions on account of old bardana are also justified as the complainant had sold the salvage of bardana. Hence, plea taken by the complainant has no force.

23.           Now we calculate the claim amount to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant’s firm. As discussed above, the stock was insured for an amount of Rs.41,90,00,000/-. The complainant’s firm vide its claim form dated 13.09.2021, has claimed Rs.92,87,320/-, whereas the surveyor of the OPs has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.88,50,800/- and also assessed the net adjusted loss to the tune of Rs.36,10,345/- after making huge deductions. As discussed above, the deduction @ 30% (i.e. Rs.26,55,240/-) on account of not providing the exact rate of the quality of rice is not justified. Thus, the act of the OPs while making the huge deduction, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

24.             Further, Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Usha Yadav & others 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 111, has held as under:-

“It seems that the Insurance Companies are only interested in earning the premiums which are rather too stiff now a days, but are not keen and are found to be evasive to discharge their liability. In large number of cases, the Insurance companies make the effected people to fight for getting their genuine claims. The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreements, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. This is, thus pressed into service to either repudiate the claim or to reject the same. The Insurance Companies normally build their case on such clauses of the policy, but would adopt methods which would not be governed by the strict conditions contained in the policy”.

 25.          In view of the above discussion, the complainant’s firm is entitled for Rs.62,65,585/- (Rs.36,10,345 + Rs.26,55,240) alongwith interest, compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses, etc.

 26.          Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties No.1 to 3 (insurer) to pay Rs.62,65,585/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of closing of claim i.e. 12.11.2021 till its actual realization. We also direct the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear if the awarded amount is not paid within stipulated period then this amount will carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of announcement of the order till its realization.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:21.08.2023     

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                         Member                    Member