DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 551
Instituted on: 09.09.2016
Decided on: 24.03.2017
Hardev Singh Saroya aged about 58 years proprietor of M/s. Saroya Plastic Industries, Focal Point, Sangrur, resident of H.No.H-124, St. No.5, Haripura Road, Punia Colony, Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 87, MG Road, Fort, Mumbai through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Regional Office) Surya Tower, The Mall, Ludhiana through its Deputy General Manager.
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. College Road, Sangrur through its Sr. Divisional Manager.
4. Sr. Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Near Judicial Complex, Patiala Road, Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.
..Opposite parties.
For the complainant : Shri Yogesh Gupta, Adv.
For Opp. Parties : Shri Amit Kumar Bhalla, Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Hardev Singh Saroya, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by obtaining a fire insurance policy bearing number 36130211150100000063 for the period from 6.8.2015 to 5.8.2016 for Rs.30.00 Lacs as the complainant had taken the loan from Union Bank of India, branch Sangrur on 21.2.2015 and purchased the machinery from Punjab Plastic Machinery Ludhiana vide bill number 672 dated 21.2.2015 for Rs.8,64,308/- and bill number 673 dated 28.2.2015 for Rs.6,78,720/-.
2. Further case of the complainant is that on 27/28.02.2016, a fire broke out in the factory premises and as such the fire station officer was informed and fire was controlled through fire tanker number PAT-5568 and the complainant also intimated the Ops about the same. Further case of the complainant is that after receipt of the intimation, the OPs deputed Mr. Parmod Mittal, surveyor, who reached at the spot at 10.00 AM on 28.2.2016 to assess the loss. Further case of the complainant is that on 15.6.2016 the complainant received an email asking him to give consent as the same was not as per the actual loss suffered by the complainant, therefore, he refused to give consent. It is further stated that the complainant suffered loss of stock to the tune of Rs.12,24,399.53, whereas the machinery loss was in total. It is further stated that the cost of machinery was not insured for Rs.25,00,000/- rather value of the machinery was Rs.8,64,308/- plus Rs.6,78,720/- and the assessment of loss to the machinery to the tune of Rs.9,92,450/- is said to be wrong and illegal. Further case of the complainant is that the complainant got served a legal notice upon the OPs on 8.7.2016 and stated that only Rs.7,58,797/- has been paid to Union Bank of India and nothing remains due. Further case of the complainant is that the raw material from junk dealer was purchased w.e.f. 1.4.2015 to 24.2.2016 for Rs.10,15,098/-, which has been reflected in the accounts books. It is further stated that after process of plastic dana for Rs.9,72,989/-, raw impure plastic scrap of Rs.1,45,682/- and raw pure plastic scrap of Rs.1,05,728/- total Rs.12,24,399/- was lying in the factory premises and the assessment of loss to the tune of Rs.39,510/- has been said to be wrong and denied. Further it is averred that the complainant never claimed loss of Rs.25,03,000/- against machinery, however mentioned that entire machinery has burnt. The machines were purchased for Rs.8,64,308/- vide invoice number 675 dated 21.2.2015 and Rs.6,78,720/- vide invoice number 673 dated 28.2.2015 and that due to typographical mistake, the insurance value to the tune of Rs.25.00 Lacs has wrongly been mentioned. As such, it is stated that the complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.12,24,399.50 on account of material and Rs.14,55,000/- on account of value of machinery and the Ops paid only an amount of Rs.7,58,797/-, therefore the net loss payable comes to Rs.20,07,630/- out of which the amount of Rs.99,245/- is liable to be deducted on account of depreciation. Thus, the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.19,08,385/- along with interest @ 12% per annum and further the complainant has prayed accordingly and also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
3. In reply of the complaint filed by the OPs, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has dragged the Ops into unwanted litigation, that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complaint is false and frivolous one. On merits, it has been stated that the claim has already been paid as assessed by the surveyor and the loss assessed by the surveyor is genuine one. It has been stated that the total turnover during the period from 1.4.2015 to 26.2.2016 was of Rs.10,77,475/- and as against this total turnover, the claim of stocks to the tune of Rs.12,24,399/- is not possible. The complainant has claimed the loss of plastic dana @ Rs.37/- per kg. on sale rate, whereas the indemnity under the policy is at cost and there cannot be any element of profit. It is further averred that as per the trading account provided by the insured, the gross profit ratio is 55.83% and accordingly after making the adjustment for profit element in the sale rate, the cost rate shall be Rs.16.34 and the claim of plastic dana will be reduced by Rs.5,43,296/-. Further it is stated that in the case of sale of plastic dana, there were not stocks in hand, but still the sales are shown in the stock register from 1.4.2015 to 8.4.2015, it was in negative and in this regard, the surveyor has submitted his report after thorough investigation of the claim of the complainant. It is stated further that the total value of the machinery is Rs.14,55,000/- as is evident from the copies of the bills and the machinery in question was one year old only. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied. It is stated that the claim has rightly been settled and paid.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of claim form, Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 copies of invoice, Ex.C-5 copy of DDR, Ex.C-6 copy of fire report, Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-36 photographs, Ex.C-37 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-38 copy of reply to the legal notice and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit of Parmod Mittal, Ex.OP-2 copy of survey report, Ex.OP-3 to Ex.OP-25 photostat copies of photographs, Ex.OP-26 to Ex.OP-33 copies of VAT form, Ex.OP-34 affidavit of Mewa Singh, Ex.OP-35 copy of fire insurance claim form, Ex.OP-36 to Ex.OP-108 copies of documents and other documents and closed evidence.
5. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.
6. First of all, we have perused the copy of standard fire and perils policy, Ex.OP-108, which clearly shows that the Ops insured the plant, machinery and accessories for Rs.25,00,000/- and further the stocks and stocks in process were insured for Rs.5,00,000/-.
7. In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that though a fire broke out in the factory premises of the complainant on 27/28.02.2016 during the subsistence of the insurance policy, whereby the machinery plant and other raw material were damaged totally, of which intimation was given to the Ops. The Ops appointed surveyor, who submitted his survey report, which is on record as Ex.OP-2. It is own admitted case of the complainant that the Ops have already paid an amount of Rs.7,58,797/- to the Union Bank of India (Banker of the complainant). Now, the grievance of the complainant is that the assessment made by the Ops is totally wrong and without any basis. As such, the complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.19,08,385/- from the Ops. On the other hand, the stand of the Ops is that the claim has rightly been settled and the amount of Rs.7,58,797/- has rightly been paid.
8. First of all, now coming to the point of insurance of machinery. We have perused the copy of insurance policy Ex.OP-108, which clearly shows that the plant, machinery and accessories were insured for Rs.25,00,000/-. A bare perusal of the survey report, Ex.OP-2 submitted by Mittal Independent Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors (P) Ltd. shows that the complainant is running a plastic dana manufacturing factory, wherein a fire broke out on 27.2.2016 due to electric short circuit in which plant and machinery were damaged totally. The surveyor has assessed the value of the machinery as Rs.7,59,224/-, but we are unable to go with such a contention of the surveyor, as the complainant has produced on record the copies of the bills Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 dated 21.2.2015 and 28.2.2015 for Rs.8,64,308/- and Rs.6,78,720/-, respectively, meaning thereby the complainant spent an amount of Rs.15,43,028/- on the purchase of the machinery, which was insured one. It is the case of the complainant himself that the machinery in question was insured for Rs.25,00,000/-, but the Ops paid only an amount of Rs.7,59,224/-. In the present case the machinery suffered total loss due to the fire broke out in the factory premises, but the Ops did not settle the claim in full. In these circumstances, we feel that if 10% depreciation on the total cost of the machinery i.e. Rs.15,43,028/- is allowed, then the claim payable to the complainant comes to Rs.13,88,726/- and further decreasing the value of the salvage, the net claim payable after deductions on account of the machinery comes to Rs.12,54,745/-. As such, we feel that an amount of Rs.12,54,745/- is payable to the complainant on account of loss of machinery.
9. Now, coming to the point of loss on account of the plastic dana etc., it is the own case of the complainant that the raw material from junk dealer was purchased w.e.f. 1.4.2015 to 24.2.2016 for Rs.10,15,098/- and after process of plastic dana for Rs.9,72,989/-, raw impure plastic scrap of Rs.1,45,682/- and raw pure plastic scrap of Rs.1,05,728/- total was Rs.12,24,399.53, out of which the complainant has sold the goods for Rs.10,77,475/- and the remaining stock should be for Rs.1,46,924/-. But, the complainant has claimed the closing balance of raw material to the tune of Rs.12,24,399.53, as such, we are unable to go with such a contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the balance of raw material was this one. Moreover, there is no pacca bill on that account and the complainant has produced only copies of the vouchers Ex.OP-73 to Ex.OP-107. Further we feel that ends of justice would be met if the OPs are directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,46,924/- only.
10. The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.
11. In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.14,03,669/- (Rs.12,54,745/- on account of machinery plus Rs.1,46,924/- on account of material) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 09.09.2016 till realisation. Out of the above amount, the Ops shall also deduct the amount of Rs.7,58,797/- already paid to the complainant. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- in lieu of litigation expenses.
12. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
March 24, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
