Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/241/2013

M/S Amandeep Steel - Complainant(s)

Versus

U.I.I Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sh N.K Prashar

30 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

FATEHGARH SAHIB.

 

                        Consumer Complaint No.241 of 2013

                                                    

                                                                                                 Date of institution:  20.11.2013

                                                                                                  Decided on:            30.09.2016

 

M/s Amandeep Steel and Agro Industries, Amloh Road, Disposal Works Road, Mandi Gobindgarh Tehsil Amloh District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Partner Ranjit Singh son of Sohan Singh.

                                                                                  ……..Complainant

                                         Versus

1. The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Opposite Bus      Stand, above Bank of India, Mandi Gobindgarh District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Branch Manager.
2. The United India Insurance Company Ltd., G.T.Road, opposite Bus Stand Khanna District Ludhiana through its Divisional Manager.
3. State Bank of Patiala branch G.T.Road, Mandi Gobindgarh District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Branch Manager.

                                                                 …..Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 TO 14 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

Smt. Veena Chahal, Member

Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

 

Present : Sh.N.K.Prashar,Adv. counsel for the complainant.

              Sh.Amit Gupta,adv. counsel for ops no.1&2

               Sh.A.K.Gupta,adv. Counsel for op no.3.     

 

ORDER

 

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.  

 

                        The Hon’ble State Commission, vide its order dated 01.04.2016 passed in FA No.219 of 2015, remanded the present case with direction to decide whether to accept the Survey report or reject the same by recording the findings. 

2.                      Complainant M/s Amandeep Steel and Agro Industries situated at Amloh Road, Disposal Works Road, Mandi Gobindgarh,Tehsil Amloh District Fatehgarh Sahib has filed this complaint against the opposite parties( hereinafter referred to as OPs) through its partner Ranjit Singh. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

3                        The complainant is a partnership firm and is dealing in manufacturing of iron goods and trading of iron material etc. for which purpose a limit of Rs.55,00,000/- was got sanctioned through its banker State Bank of Patiala ( OP No.3). Previously i.e. three years ago the limit was for Rs.35,00,000/-. After the enhancement of the limit to Rs.55,00,000/- OP No.3 got insured the complainant firm regarding its assets i.e. Engineering workshop, structural steel fabricators etc., hot/cold rolling mill, pipe extruding, stamping, pressing forging mills, metal smelting, foundries galvanising works, metal extraction, Ore processing (other than Aluminum, Copper, Zinc) for Rs.15,00,000/-only without the consultation of the complainant for assessing the value of the assets, which were undervalued in connivance with OPs No.1&2.  Before the enhancement of the limit to the extent of Rs.55,00,000/-, OP No.3 had never got insured the assets of complainant i.e. M/s Amandeep Steel and Agro Industries. On 06.06.2013, due to high intensity thunder storm and winds,  the main production hall of sheds had fallen down and  due to falling of trussed shed, the rolling mill machinery, electrical items, furnas etc. had to bear the blunt of the same. The intimation regarding the same was given to OPs on the same day i.e. 06.06.2013. and DDR in this regard was also lodged with the police on 07.06.2013. The complainant completed all the formalities and on 3.9.2013 Sh.Arun Mehta, surveyor and loss assessor prepared a report, copy of which was never supplied to the complainant. The complainant firm procured the report of the surveyor through R.T.I. after 20.09.2013. The loss caused to the complainant firm was assessed/prepared by Er.P.K.Shahi (B.E.Civil) on 10.6.2013 to the tune of Rs.24,09,975/-. Apart from this, loss to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- also occurred to the machinery, furnace area, rolling mill and electrical items of the complainant firm, which were got repaired on the direction of Mr. Arun Mehta, valuer/surveyor. The replacement value of the building and other assets was assessed to the tune of Rs.37,64,390/-. The complainant firm approached the OPs for payment of loss but the OPs refused to pay the same. Thus, there was a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant incurred loss more than Rs.20,00,000/- but it waived its right to claim more than Rs.20,00,000/-. Hence this complaint for a direction to the OPs to pay the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest @18% per annum from 06.06.2013,  Rs.1,00,000/- as damages, Rs.5000/-as counsel fee +Rs.500/-as miscellaneous charges.

4.                               The complaint is contested by the OPs. In the written version filed by OPs.1&2, it is stated that the complainant purchased the Standard Fire and Special Peril policy bearing No.200604/11/12/11/00000451, for a period from 25.01.2013 to 24.01.2014 through OP No.3 covering the building for a sum of Rs.15 lac. It is further stated that after the receipt of the intimation, the OPs deputed IRDA approved surveyor Sh.Arun Mehta,  to assess the loss and who submitted his report dated 03.09.2013 assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.2,33,638/- which was approved by the competent authority of the company. The complainant was intimated vide letter dated 08.10.2013  for sending the duly signed settlement intimation voucher but even after the reminder dated 29.10.2013, the complainant had not sent the same and the payment could not be released. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5.                      In reply to the complaint OP No.3 admitted that it is the Banker of complainant firm and complainant firm has availed loan/credit facility in connection with its business for commercial purpose. It is further stated that the complainant is not a consumer within the provisions of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. The complainant is maintaining the cash credit limit in connection with its business and has to insure all its assets. The insurance was got done by OP No.3 as per the valuation report furnished by the complainant firm and the premium was being paid from the cash credit limit account of the complainant firm, which was within the knowledge of the complainant firm. The policies were also received by the complainant firm itself and had never raised any dispute regarding the same. It denied that the assets were got insured undervalued in connivance with OPs No.1&2.It is further stated that the complainant firm was sanctioned cash credit limit to the tune of Rs.35lac, which has now been enhanced to the tune of Rs.55lac and the complainant was enjoying the facility of the same since 2006.   OP No.3 was acting as an agent of complainant firm for getting the insurance policy and had no control over the terms and conditions of the Insurance Company. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6.                      In order to prove the case, the complainant firm through his partner tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.C-1,copy of partnership deed Ex.C-2, copy of form A&C Exs.C-3 & C-4, copy of policy Ex.C-5, copy of policy Ex.C-6, copy of policy Ex.C-7, copy of letter dated 06.06.2013 Ex.C-8, copy of DDR Ex.C-9, copy of RTI letter dated 20.9.2013 Ex.C-10, copy of letter dated 20.06.2013 Ex.C-11, copy of final survey report Ex.C-12,  copy of renewed policyEx.C-13 and closed the evidence.   On the other hand on behalf of OPs no.1&2, the learned counsel had tendered in evidence Ex.OP2/1 affidavit of Harmail Singh, Ex.OP2/2 affidavit of Er.Arun Mehta, surveyor, Ex.OP2/3 final survey report, Ex.OP2/4 copy of interim survey report of Arum Mehta dated 8.6.2013, Ex.OP2/5 copy of policy, Ex.OP2/6 copy of letter dated 08.10.2013, Ex.OP2/7 copy of letter dated 29.10.2013, Ex.OP2/8 copy of letter dated 11.09.2013  and copy of policy Ex.OP2/9 and closed the evidence.  Likewise on behalf of OP no.3 the ld. counsel tendered in evidence OP3/1 affidavit of Bipan Mittal, AGM, Ex.OP3/2 copy of valuation report, Ex.OP3/3 & ExOP3/4 copies of photographs and closed the evidence.

7.                      The ld. counsel for the complainant has stated that the Survey Report (Ex.C-12) deserves to be rejected as the same is based on wrong valuation. He submitted that in the Survey Report, under the Valuation head it has been stated that    “Taking this valuation into consideration, building was found far under insured and hence average clause becomes applicable on assessed loss.” .The ld. counsel further submitted that due to the negligence on the part of OPs No. 1 & 2 the complainant cannot be made to suffer. He pleaded that it is evident from the insurance policies i.e Ex.C-5 to C-7 that OPs No.1 & 2 had been issuing undervalued policies amounting to a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-(Fifteen lacs) and during the pendency of the present complaint OPs No.1 & 2 after realizing their mistake issued the policy i.e Ex.C-13 amounting to Rs.40,00,000(Forty lacs.) of the actual value. The ld. counsel pleaded that since the Survey report is proved to be based on wrong valuation, thus the average clause cannot be applicable. The ld.counsel further pleaded that the Shahi Planner assessment report i.e Ex.C-11 issued by P.K.Shahi, approved valuer be accepted to the extent of 20,00,000/-(twenty lacs) only as the complainant has waived the amount of Rs. 409975/- and claimed only Rs.20,00,000/-in the present complaint.

8.                      On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OPs No. 1 & 2 objected to the submissions made by the ld. counsel for the complainant. He submitted that the OPs are ready and willing to pay the loss, as assessed by the Surveyor. The ld. counsel also submitted that the Survey report deserves to be accepted as it is based on a thorough investigation. He pleaded that the report prepared by the P.K.Shahi cannot be accepted as no proper investigation had been carried out. The ld. counsel place reliance on the case law titled as; 1)United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Shree Sunder Marbles, in 2015 SCC Online NCDRC 4384; 2) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Verka Indane Gas Service Verka in 2014 SCC Online NCDRC 754 and 3) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Vs. Axis Bank Ltd. and others in 2016 SCC Online NCDRC 144.

9.                      The ld. counsel for OP No.3 pleaded that the main dispute in the present case is between the complainant and OP No.1 & 2. He stated that the Bank has no role with regard to repudiation of the claim, thus prayed for dismissal of the present complainant qua OP no.3.

10.                    We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments and written submissions, in our view it has been established from the insurance policies i.e Ex.   C-5 to C-7 that OPs No.1 & 2 had been issuing undervalued policies to the complainant and when OPs No.1 & 2 realized their negligence, they rectified their mistake during the pendency of the present complainant and issued the Policy i.e Ex.C-13 of the proper value. Further it is established from the affidavit of Surveyor in support of his report i.e Ex.OP-2/2  and Survey Report (Ex.C-12) wherein it has been stated “Taking this valuation into consideration, building was found far under insured and hence average clause becomes applicable on assessed loss”. We are of the view that it is proved from the material placed on record by the complainant that the Survey report was based on wrong valuation, hence the average clause will not be applicable to the same. In our opinion OP No.3 has no involvement in the dispute between the complainant and OP No.1 & 2. The case law citied by the ld. counsel for OP No.1 & 2 are not applicable to the facts and circumstance to the present case, hence the same cannot be considered.

11.                    Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we find that OPs No.1 & 2 acted negligently, while issuing the undervalued policies, because of this act the loss assessed by the Surveyor cannot be accepted. Hence we accept the assessment report i.e Ex.C-11 issued by P.K.Shahi and direct OPs No. 1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-(Twenty Lacs) towards his rightful claim to the complainant as he has waived his right to claim more than the awarded amount. The present complaint stands accepted against OPs No.1 & 2 and dismissed qua OP No.3.

12.                             Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:30.09.2016

(A.P.S.Rajput)                 President

 

(Veena Chahal)                Member                                                                                       (A.B.Aggarwal)               Member