Haryana

StateCommission

CC/210/2015

HINDUSTAN POLY PACKS - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

RECEIVED FROM NCDRC,NEW DELHI

05 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                             Consumer Complaint No.     210 of 2015

                                      Date of Institution                  16.11.2015

                                       Date of Decision                             05.12.2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M/s Hindustan Polypack, Proprietorship concern through its Proprietor Rajiv Chawla, Plot No.90/3, HSIDC, Industrial Area, Karnal, Haryana.

                                      Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      State Bank of India, RASMECCC, The Mall Road, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

2.      The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Karnal through its Divisional Manager.

Opposite Parties

 

 

 

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

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                                                                                                                        

 

Argued by:          Shri Roshan Santhalia, Advocate for the complainant

                             Shri K.S. Arya, Advocate for the opposite party No.1

                             Shri S.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the opposite party No.2

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

          M/s Hindustan Polypack through its proprietor Shri Rajiv Chawla (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) has filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging that on December 01^st, 2011 a fire took place in it’s premises resulting into loss of Rs.64,50,000/-, that is, on account of loss to the raw material, machinery and building. The premises was insured with The New India Assurance Company Limited-opposite party No.2 (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) for the period June 01^st, 2011 to May 31^st, 2012 vide insurance policy Exhibit C-4.  The sum insured on buildings – superstructure was Rs.18,00,000/- and on stocks and stocks in process was Rs.45,00,000/-.  The total sum insured was Rs.63,00,000/-.  The complainant had also obtained loan of Rs.35,00,000/- as Cash Credit Limit and Medium Term Loan of Rs.5,04,000/- from State Bank of India, Karnal -opposite party No.1.  After the incident, the bank and the Insurance Company were informed.   

2.      The bank and the Insurance Company filed their written version alleging that the loss occurred was of Rs.2,81,368/-, that is, Rs.50,715/- for the loss of building and Rs.2,45,062/- for the loss of stock.  After deducting 5% as per excess clause of the insurance policy and fire fighting charges, the net loss was Rs.2,81,368/-, which the Insurance Company has already paid to the complainant. 

3.      In evidence, the complainant Rajeev Chawla filed his affidavit Exhibit CW1/A alongwith following documents:-

1.	Letter of Arrangement	Exhibit C-1
2.	Letter dated July 16th, 2007 written to The Excise & Taxation Officer, Karnal	Exhibit C-2
3.	Stock Statements	Exhibit C-3
4.	Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy for the period June 01st, 2011 to May 31st, 2012.	Exhibit C-4
5.	Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy for the period June 01st, 2012 to May 31st, 2013.	Exhibit C-5
6.	Statement of account	Exhibit C-6
7.	Copy of Daily Diary Report No.13 dated December 06th, 2011	Exhibit C-7
8.	Fire Report	Exhibit C-8
9.	Survey and Assessment Report	Exhibit C-9
10.	Letter dated January 24th, 2012 written by State Bank of India	Exhibit C-10
11.	Letter dated January 31st, 2012	Exhibit C-11
12.	Copy of Legal Notice dated February 10th, 2012	Exhibit C-12
13.	Reply to Legal Notice dated February 18th, 2012	Exhibit C-13
14.	Estimated Loss given by Hindustan Poly Packs dated December 06th, 2011	Exhibit C-14
15.	Legal Notice dated August 01st, 2012	Exhibit C-15
16.	Legal Notice dated August 17th, 2012	Exhibit C-16
17.	Reply to Legal Notice	Exhibit C-17
18.	Letter dated April 05th, 2013	Exhibit C-18
19.	Information under RTI Act	Exhibit C-19
20.	Policy Schedule for Burglary	Exhibit C-20
21.	Photographs	Exhibit C-21
22.	Information under RTI Act	Exhibit C-22
23.	Information under RTI Act	Exhibit C-23

 

4.      The Bank and the Insurance Company filed affidavits of Amarjeet Singh Maan Exhibit OPW1/A, N.S. Sidhu Exhibit OP2/A and I.C. Sirohi Exhibit OP2/B alongwith following documents:-

1.	Recovery Certificate	Exhibit OP-1
2.	Stock Statements	Exhibit OP-2
3.	Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy	Exhibit OP2/1
4.	Letter dated December 02nd, 2011 written by Hindustan Poly Packs to AGM State Bank of India, Karnal	Exhibit OP2/2
5.	Intimation about fire dated December 02nd, 2011	Exhibit OP2-3
6.	Detail of Damaged goods	Exhibit OP2/4
7.	Bifurcation of stocks	Exhibit OP2/5
8.	Total Loss of Building	Exhibit OP2/6
9.	Survey and Assessment Report	Exhibit OP2/7
10.	Letter dated May 30th, 2012	Exhibit OP2/8
11.	Settlement of Claim	Exhibit OP2/9
12.	Settlement of Claim	Exhibit OP2/10

 

5.      Counsel for the parties have been heard.  Record over the file has been perused. 

6.      It is not in dispute that the insurance policy (Exhibit C-4) was purchased by the complainant from the Insurance Company for the period June 01^st, 2011 to May 31^st, 2012.  The insurance policy was Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy.  The risk described in the policy is mentioned as below:-

          “Plastic Goods Mfg excluding Foam Plastic having calorific

          Value upto 15000 btu/ib.”

 

7.      Under the heading Policy Level Covers, the sum insured on building superstructure was Rs.18,00,000/- and on stocks and stocks in process was Rs.45,00,000/-, that is, in all Rs.63,00,000/-. The Insurance Company appointed M/s Consolidated Surveyors Private Limited. The surveyor in its report (Exhibit C-9) assessed the loss stating that Plastic Dana and Semi Finished Goods 2700 Kg @ Rs.95 per kg amounting to Rs.2,56,500/- and Ink for Printing 100 Kg @ Rs.170/- per kg was Rs.17,000/-, that is, Rs.2,73,500/-, Less 2.5% Dead Stock Rs.6,837.50 and Less Salvage Value of Scrap @ Rs.10  per kg (Rs.2700 -20% =2160 Kg), that is, Rs.21,600/- and as such, the loss was assessed at Rs.2,45,062.50 and for the loss of building, the amount assessed was Rs.50,715/- after deducting depreciation of 42.50% because the building was constructed in the year 1995.  The net payable loss was Rs.2,81,368.62, to say Rs.2,81,369/-.  Under Clause 14.4 of the surveyor report, it has been clearly mentioned that the insured suffered the loss on account of stock of plastic granules and stock in process and stock of paper. The loss of stock of paper and its semi finished and finished goods are not covered under the policy.  Similarly, the loss of machines was also not covered under the scope of the policy.  During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has fairly admitted that vide insurance policy (Exhibit C-4), the loss of stock of paper and its semi finished and finished goods and machinery were not covered.  However, he has laid emphasis on the ground that it was insured because in the later years, in the insurance policies purchased by the complainant, loss of stock of paper and its semi finished and finished goods and machinery were duly covered. So, it should have been for the preceding year also when the incident of fire took place. It was also urged that since the insurance policy was purchased by the complainant through bank, so, it was the duty of the bank to include all these items under the insurance policy, which the Bank did not and for that, there was deficiency in service on the part of Bank as well as Insurance Company. 

8.      The fire incident is not in dispute.  It is also not in dispute that the insurance policy (Exhibit C-4) was purchased by the complainant and loss of stock of paper, its semi finished, finished goods and machinery were not covered under the policy.  The items which were covered, that is, building and the plastic granules, semi finished goods etc, the surveyor submitted detailed report (Exhibit C-9) assessing the loss at Rs.2,45,062.50.  Loss of Stock Rs.2,45,62.50, Loss of Building Rs.50,715/- and Fire Fighting Charges Rs.400/-.  After deducting policy excess 5%, the net payable loss was Rs.2,81,369/-, which the Insurance Company has already paid to the complainant, a fact which is not in dispute.  Since the complainant was not insured for the items for which the loss had occurred, the Insurance Company was not at all liable to indemnify the complainant.

9.      The contention of learned counsel for the complainant that since in the later policies, these items were covered, so, it is presumed that these should have been included and covered under the policies, is not tenable.  So far as the contention that it was the duty of the bank to get the items insured is also not tenable because it is the case of the complainant that all the assets charged to the bank should always be insured by the borrower as stated by the complainant in paragraph No.4 of the complaint itself.

10.    The complainant has not challenged the loss assessed by the surveyor except that the items covered were not taken into consideration by the surveyor.  To take the benefit of the later insurance policies purchased by the complainant covering all items whatsoever those were, is not acceptable at all because the items were not covered under the present policy.  In this view of the matter, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the surveyor has rightly assessed the loss by taking into consideration the items covered as per the insurance policy (Exhibit C-4).  Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.  

   

  

Announced 05.12.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK