Per Shri Narendra Kawde, Hon’ble Member
Complainant-M/s.Our India Sports Centre (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) is a proprietary firm dealing in selling of sports items to various Sports Stores preferred to file a consumer complaint through its Proprietor Shri Dasharath Vithu Nehekar alleging deficiency of service against opponent/New India Assurance Company Ltd. (‘Insurance Company’ in short) since insurance claim payable under fire insurance policy on account of loss due to fire to the complainant’s godown has not been settled.
2. The case in brief is that the complainant subscribed to the insurance policy to secure insurance cover for the goods stored in the name and style M/s.Our India Sports Centre at House No.711, Mharal, Taluka Kalyan, District Thane. Policy was effective from 14/01/1999 to 13/01/2000 for a sum assured of `5,50,000/- providing insurance to stocks. During validity period of the insurance policy sports goods were destroyed by fire that occurred on 30/03/1999. The incident was reported to the opponent/Insurance Company. Insurance claim was filed for an amount of `5,55,840/-. Opponent/Insurance Company appointed Surveyor M/s.Dilbagh Singh & Co. to carry out the survey and submit survey report. However, since occurrence of the incident of fire though complainant pursued settlement of claim yet no response was coming forward from the opponent/Insurance Company and therefore, consumer complaint came to be filed alleging deficiency of service against the opponent/Insurance Company. It is the case of the complainant that all the required documents were supplied to the Surveyor, namely; M/s.Dilbagh Singh & Co. yet no Survey Report was submitted and consequently, the insurance claim payable under the insurance policy on account of damage to the sports goods was not decided by the opponent/Insurance Company. Said Surveyor was changed without notice to the complainant and one Mr.R.R. Thampi was appointed as Investigator who submitted his report stating that vigil be kept while accepting the insurance claim proposal from the complainant-Company as it was stated that complainant/Company had preferred numerous insurance claims for the loss of same sports goods with different Insurance Companies.
3. Opponent/Insurance Company was served and they appeared and filed written version and affidavit evidence denying in toto the insurance claim of the complainant occurred on account of alleged fire and loss of goods in the premises. It is further averred that complainant as reported by the Investigator does not have any office or godown at the address given in the policy. Address given in the policy was remote and there were no shops or office premises and no one was aware of any activity in this premises as this premises were mostly remained shut. Based on the report of the Investigator opponent/Insurance Company dumped the complainant’s claim as an attempt to extract money from various Insurance Companies for the same goods and the similar modus operandi was followed by the complainant.
4. We heard Learned Advocates of the parties. Perused the record.
5. There is no denial of the fact that insurance policy bearing No.140600/11/99/00155 was issued with sum assured of `5,50,000/- to extend insurance cover to the stocks and goods stored at the address given in the policy which read as “House No.711, Mharal, Taluka Kalyan, District Thane”. There is no dispute as to occurrence of fire on the date mentioned in the complaint. There is Police Panchanama of incident of fire on record. Prior to issuance of subject insurance policy, admittedly goods were stored at the address other than one mentioned in the policy. Such a note was duly taken by the opponent/Insurance Company on intimation to them and accordingly, subject policy incorporating address as “House No.711, Mharal, Taluka Kalyan, District Thane” was issued to the complainant. Police Panchanama and the report of the Fire Brigade make it crystal clear that incident of fire occurred and goods destroyed in the fire at the address given in the subject policy. The contention of the Learned Advocate for the opponent/Insurance Company that fire did not take place and the goods were not lost on the address given in the policy is not acceptable in as much as the opponent/Insurance Company has issued subject policy incorporating the address given by the complainant and the Police Panchanama and Fire Brigade report available on record strengthen the claim of the complainant that goods stored at the address given in the policy were lost to fire. No explanation came forward from the opponent/Insurance Company as to how the earlier Surveyor-M/s.Dilbagh Singh & Co. was substituted with the appointment of Mr.R.R. Thampi, the Investigator. No notice whatsoever of changing the appointment of Surveyor was received by the complainant. Further appointment of Investigator in lieu of Surveyor has not been justified with the provision of the law by the opponent/Insurance Company. Moreover, report of the Investigator though presumably to assist the decision of the opponent/Insurance Company (which states three insurance claims prior to March 1999 in respect of losses) is not supported with affidavit evidence and therefore, this report cannot be read and taken as documentary evidence as provided under Section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is contended by the opponent/Insurance Company that various claims have been preferred by the complainant in the different names with different Insurance Companies. However, there is no documentary evidence to establish that various claims with the different Insurance Companies are in respect of sports goods covered under the subject insurance policy in which insurance claim occurred due to fire that took place on 30/03/1999.
6. Opponent/Insurance Company submitted that to assess the damage as first appointed Surveyor did not file survey report, the Investigator (not known in the provision of law) has been appointed who also did not carry out the survey of damaged goods. It is the case of the complainant that they sworn affidavit supported by statement of accounts, stocks as verified the entire stock of worth `5,50,840/- was destroyed due to fire. In absence of any documentary evidence, we have to take into account the affidavit evidence of the complainant stating that the goods worth `5,50,840/- destroyed in fire. Moreover, affidavit evidence of opponent/Insurance Company does not deny the loss of goods worth `5,50,840/-, only reason for fire is disputed stating that the fire did not take place due to short-circuit, but it was intentional act on the part of the complainant. For useful reference relevant portion of the affidavit of the Insurance Company is reproduced hereinbelow :-
“The respondent says that the fire alleged to have taken place on 30/03/1999 in the early morning at about 3.30 a.m. due to the short circuit of electricity at the alleged sports goods worth `5,50,000/- is not due to the short circuit but the fire is caused intentionally with malafide intentions.”
7. Opponent/Insurance Company disputed cause of incident i.e. fire and attributed to the intentional malafide on the part of complainant without adducing any documentary evidence to prove their contention. As regards valuation in respect of destroyed goods, there is no report of the Authorised Surveyor who has declined to make valuation of the destroyed goods. Therefore, we are left with no option but to rely upon the statement of the complainant about quantum of loss stated in the complaint and supported by the affidavit evidence filed by complainant.
8. In view of aforesaid observations, we find that complainant has made out the case of deficiency of service against opponent/Insurance Company as opponent/Insurance Company has not settled the insurance claim payable as per the law. Opponent/Insurance Company has not settled and withheld the claim for unduly long period, therefore, in the interest of justice, it is necessary to saddle the opponent/Insurance Company with penal interest on the amount claimed. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Complaint is allowed.
2. Opponent/Insurance Company is hereby directed to pay an amount of `5 Lakhs with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of incident till the actual payment.
3. By way of penal compensation for not adjudicating the claim for years together, we direct opponent/Insurance Company to pay further interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of incident.
4. Opponent/Insurance Company shall also pay `10,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant.
5. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 19th November 2012.
