Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Judicial Member This complaint refers to deficiency in service on the part of opponent-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (‘Insurance Company’ in short) in not allowing the entire claim which arose due to loss in the flood of 26th July 2005. 2. Undisputed facts are that complainant had taken insurance policy i.e. Standard Fire and Special Perils policy effective for the period from midnight of 016/01/2005 to midnight of 15/01/2006. Under said policy, all office furniture and other contents including stocks consisting glassware and vinyl flooring carpets and such other goods pertaining to the insured’s trade were insured for `4 Crores. During flood of 26/07/2005, the goods (stock) kept in the godown of the complainant were damaged. Insurance claim was made. The Insurance Company by its letter dated 22/01/2007 based upon the assessment of the Surveyor sanctioned claim to the extent of `2,82,21,751/- and which was received by the complainant. However, not satisfied with the same, based on the stock value of `4,17,12,107.95, `83,79,986/- towards the less assessed value by the Insurance Company and charging interest over it @ 18% p.a. from 17/06/2006 to 17/06/2007 of `11,31,298/-, total claim of `95,11,284/- by way of compensation is made in this consumer complaint. Particulars of said claim are as under :- “ Particulars of claim Amount The value of stock as per book rate/bank rate 4,17,12,107.95 Add – Segregation charges for minimization of losses. 7,44,120.00 Add – Charges for removal of debris allowed against the claimed 4,01,905.00 as mentioned 3,00,000.000 on page 30-31 of Survey Report. Add – Cartons purchased for segregation of material 17,02,375.15 ---------------- (A) Total : 4,44,58,603.10 Less – Under Insurance @ 4.2% as already decided by the Opp. Party. (-) 12,01,675.00 Less – Actual quotation for segregated undamaged material instead of 25% less as the surveyor did not keep his proposal and arbitrarily reduced the price by 12.5%. (-) 63,50,000.00 Less – Recovery from broken glassware (-) 2,27,191.00 Less – Actual offer for lifting of PVC salvage instead of `1,90,000/- as was the quotation by the party that never turned again. 78,000.00 --------------- (B) Total : 78,56,886.00 (A) – (B) 3,66,01,717.00 Less – The claim given by the Opp.Party 2,82,21,751.00 Difference 83,79,986.00 Also interest @ 18% p.a. from 17/07/06 till 17/06/2007 ` 11,31,298.00 ------------------- Total : 95,11,284.00 =========” 3. The Insurance Company opposed this claim justifying their settlement at `2,82,21,751/-. 4. We heard both the parties. Perused the material placed on record including evidence led on affidavits. The document of Survey Report and the correspondence between the parties are not in dispute. 5. In the instant case, referring to the letter dated 22/01/2007 of the Insurance Company, which gives particulars of settlement of claim to the extent of `2,82,21,751/-, the relevant portion therefrom reads as under :- “In this connection please note that the surveyors in the above survey report dated 17/07/2006 had assessed the loss to be `3,06,17,886/- but the claim was settled for `2,82,21,751/- because: 1. Segregation expenses amounting to `7,44,120/- are not payable under the policy hence deducted from the assessed amount. 2. An amount of `4,50,340/- has been deducted as the bills for the packing material for this amount were prior to the date of the loss. 3. Under insurance has been applied @ 4.2% taking the value at risk at `4,17,12,107/- which has been confirmed in the Bank statement as well as by your Chartered Accountant.” 6. Referring to the particulars of claim submitted by the complainant himself, supra, the value of stock assessed by the complainant is `4,17,12,107.95. The insurance cover on this count is only to the extent of `4 Crores and therefore, it is a case of under insurance and referring to the value of stock and insurance cover, under insurance applied at 4.2% cannot be faulted with. A useful reference on the point can be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Sikka Papers Ltd. V/s. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., III (2009) CPJ 90 (SC). 7. However, as far as not allowing the claim deducting amount of `7,44,120/- for segregation charges for minimization of loss and also amount of `4,50,340/- for packing material; we find no justification for the Insurance Company to do so. Surveyor also did not give justification for these adjustments and therefore, Insurance Company on its own deducting this amount from the insurance claim assessed by the Surveyor on the so called statement that they are contrary to the terms of the insurance policy, cannot be accepted. When we requested the Learned Counsel for the opponent to substantiate her case, she has also not shown us any effective clauses allowing such deduction/adjustment. 8. Total assessed loss by the Surveyor is at `3,06,17,886/- and applying the under insurance, claim ought to have been sanctioned at `2,93,61,149.525 rounded off to `2,93,61,150/-. Out of this, `2,82,21,751/- were already received by the complainant and therefore, difference comes to `11,39,399/- which is an additional compensation complainant ought to have received along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of repudiation i.e. 22/01/2007 till its realization. For the reasons stated above, we hold accordingly and pass the following order :- -: ORDER :- 1. Complaint is partly allowed. 2. Opponent/Insurance Company do pay `11,39,399/- to the complainant along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 22/01/2007 till its realization. 3. In the given circumstances, both parties to bear their own costs. 4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. Pronounced Dated 27th September 2012. |
