Present complaint has been filed by M/s. New Bharat Overseas (Partnership Firm) against the Oriental Insurance Company pleading that the complainant firm is carrying on the business of sale and purchase of rice etc. Complainant has taken on rent a godown of one M/s.Khosla International and stored the rice, paddy etc. in the said godown. The complainant has obtained credit facility from ICICI Bank and against the said loan facility, the complainant firm has pledged/his stored rice, paddy etc. lying in the said godown. The lock and key of the said godown remains in the possession of the said ICICI Bank. From the period from 1.9.2006 to 4.9.2006, the entire State of Punjab witnessed heavy rains and due to the said rains the stock of basmati rice stored in the said godown damaged due to entering of the rain water in the ground and the complainant firm suffered a loss of Rs.8,81,928/-. Complainant came to know about the said loss on 4.9.2006 when the watchman of the said ICICI Bank informed about the same. The said stock was insured with the opposite party/Insurance Company and claim was lodged but the opposite party/Insurance Company has repudiated the claim of the complainant wrongly and illegally. Hence, this complaint pleading that opposite parties be directed to pay the claim of Rs.8,81,928/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. Complainant has also claimed Rs.1,00,000/-as damages for the mental agony, harassment and inconvenience, he suffered and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written reply wherein it has been pleaded that the complainant has failed to produce the actual record pertaining to the stock in question. As per the report made by Tehsildar Batala dated 29.9.2008 no rain took place on 1.9.2006 and 4.9.2006. There was negligible rain on 2.9.2006 and 3.9.2006 i.e. 97mm on 2.9.2006 and 74.4mm on 3.9.2006. The rainy water did not enter the insured premises. No heavy rain occurred during the period from 1.9.2006 to 4.9.2006. The matter was investigated by the Surveyor of the opposite parties who reported that there was no sign of rainy water entering into the insured premises. The complainant has prepared a false story to get the false claim from the opposite parties. As per the report of the Surveyor there was no evidence that rainy water entered into the insured premises and as such the claim of the complainant has rightly been rejected by the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

3.       Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavits of Sh.Manoj K.Aggarwal Ex.C-92, of Sh.Deba Singh Ex.C-93 and of Sh.Munish Khosla Ex.C-94 along with other documents exhibited as Ex.C1 to Ex.C91 and closed the evidence.

4.        Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Pawan Kumar Gupta Ex.RW1/A, of Jasjit Singh son of Inder Pal Singh Sole Prop. Ex.RW2/B and of Sh.R.K.Bansal D.M.OIC Ex.RW3/C, alongwith the other documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-66 and closed the evidence.

5.     The present complaint has been remanded by virtue of the orders dated 05.01.2016 of the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in FA # 294 of 2012 preferred against the orders dated 19.01.2012 of this Forum in CC # 231 of 2009 vide which the same was dismissed with the liberty to the parties to approach the civil court for adjudication of the dispute in question. Thus, we, in compliance to the above referred orders of the honorable State Commission, proceed ahead with the present adjudicatory.

6.       We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record for their respective statutory merit and have also duly heard & considered the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for the present litigants. We find that the present complaint prompted at the repudiation (by the opposite party insurers) of the insurance claim of Rs.8,81,928/- as filed by the complainant firm as compensation for the alleged loss caused to the insured stocks of Rice Paddy/Basmati/Bardana etc by the torrential rains/ inundation/floods etc on 04.09.2006. We judicially deduce that the complainant’s insisted contention has been that the loss/damage was caused (to the insured stocks) by the incessant rains/flood waters/water inundation etc and is thus validly covered under the applicable terms of the related policy whereas the OP insurers’ rebuttal as based upon the surveyor/investigator’s findings out-rightly negates the presence/entry of flood-waters into the Godown on 04.09.2006 to cause loss/damage to the insured stocks and further alleges it upon the ‘moisture’ content in air/dampness and excessive water vapor in the closed godown air/atmosphere and as such the resultant ‘loss/ damage’ shall not be covered under the applicable terms of the operative Policy.

7.       We repeat here somewhat concise/concentrative perceptive impressions of the evidence/documents as re-produced by this forum in its orders dated 19.01.2012 and also by the honorable State Commission in its orders dated 05.01.2016. The insurance policy cover notes Ex.C3 & Ex.C4 prove the validity and risks covered for the sum insured of Rs.12,500,000/- but indicating the insured as: ICICI Bank Ltd., (A/c M/s New Bharat Overseas, Faizpura) to whom the stocks stood pledged under lock & key arrangement duly managed by the Bank designate M & C Agents for Commodity Finance namely: Hanuman Dass & Sons, Jalandhar. Further, copy of the Stock letters Ex.C5 & Ex.C6 indicate stocks of Rs.66.90 Lac on the date of loss (04.09.2006) whereas the Letter dated 11.09.2006 Ex.C7 estimate the loss at Rs.8,81,928/-. Interestingly, neither the quantum of total available stocks (on 04.09.2006) nor the estimated quantum of loss to the damaged stocks has been under dispute/contest though under some variance etc. It is as to the cause of loss/damage to the stocks that has been in dispute/under contest. Thus, the entire documentary evidence including the surveyor’s reminders/photographs etc of the damaged stocks become immaterial at the face of Survey Report & the complainant’s evidence in support of inundation/rains/floods etc. 

8.       We find that the complainant has successfully proved on record that there has been quite un-expected but un-abnormally heavy rains (SDM Report-Ex.C16) on 02.09.2006 (97.4 mm) and 03.09.2006 (74.4 mm) positively letting-in the rain waters to source flood-water inundation in the Stocks Godown in question may be for a quite-short period of time causing damage to the insured stocks. The Surveyor has also admitted damage to the stocks though not by floods but by moisture etc.  Although, un-admitted in vocal terms, it does amount to deemed admittance of rain-water/ water inundation (though may be for a very short period of time) as the prime cause of damage to the insured stocks of Rice/Paddy etc. The Surveyor Investigator has even assessed/quantified (Ex.R5) the Loss (net of salvage value & excess clause etc) as incurred to the insured stocks at Rs.7,77,240/- against the complainant’s insurance claim of Rs.8,81,928/-.

9.       We have consciously examined the 2 nos of State Commission judgments [2012(1) CPR 384 & 2010(1) WBLR 626] as quoted by the learned counsel for the opposite party insurers but find that even these shall not assist him either since here the surveyor admits the loss caused by moisture content in air/water vapors etc (that can be resulted through rain waters/water inundation etc) i.e., water based and the evidence of incessantly heavy rains stand proved through SDM’s weather report which has been a public document. Likewise, the learned counsel for the complainant firm has quoted the apex court judgment in CA # 4720 of 2008 titled Dharmendra Goel vs. Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., to the legal proposition of which we respectfully concur but fail to find its relevancy with the present situation.

10.     We find that the complainant firm did also deposit the Loan amount with the pledge Bank on 06.09.2006 to claim the insured stocks and the subsequent insurance claim amount as compensation to the incurred losses. Further, Ex.C6 provides the total monetary value of the physical quantum of the stocks for assessment of loss etc and also for settlement of insurance claim, in question. The concurrent invoices (even in its isolation) do prove the title to ownership to the firm’s stocks and its subsequent legal possession over the damaged stocks to claim its insurance cover. The complainant and the OP surveyor have jointly marked the ‘damaged’ stocks ‘invoice-wise’ to award a mutually-consented authenticity to the pre-settlement loss-assessment to the insurance claim, in question. Finally, since the OP insurers have to settle the insurance claims from ‘Public Money’ funds thus they need to follow a set procedure as per the IRDA guidelines to justify the settlement of ‘insurance claim’ in the present case.      

11.     In the light of the all above, we find the requisite mix of infringement of consumer rights with statutory merit in the present complaint and thus while partly allowing the present complaint ORDER the titled OP insurers to pay the impugned insurance claim amount of Rs.7,77,240/- (as per surveyor report) alongwith interest at the rate 6% P.A. from the filing of present complaint to the complainant firm besides to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the aggregate awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of orders till actual payment.

12.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

          (Naveen Puri)

                                                                             President   

Announced:                                                     (Jagdeep Kaur)

June 09, 2016                                                          Member

*MK*