1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD4 FLOOR ,BANK OF INDIA BUILDING,ROAPURA BARODA-390001 -
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :
NEMO
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 25 Feb 2010
ORDER
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint vide order dated 22.9.2005 passed by Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, the State Commission) in complaint No. 7 of 1997, the original complainant-M/s Navjivan Roller Flour & Pulse Mills Ltd. have filed the present appeal. The complaint before the State Commission related to the non-settlement/unjustified rejection of the insurance claim lodged by the complainant with the respondent-Insurance Company. The complaint was resisted by the insurance company on the ground that the loss suffered by the complainant due to damage to the stock of empty gunny bags was not covered under the policy and, in any case, the complainant had already received the claim for the said loss from the United India Insurance Company Limited with which they had also insured the stocks to the extent of 75.50%. The State Commission, going by the respective pleas and the material put forth before it, more particularly, the survey report dated 21.04.1994 of R.D. Engineer & Co., Surveyors, Assessors, Valuers & Chartered Engineers, has justified the repudiation of the claim and dismissed the complaint holding that the respondent-insurance company has not committed any deficiency in service. 2. We have heard Mr. S. J. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. G. L. Chawla, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company and have given our thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions. 3. Mr. Mehta would assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that it is not based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and the relevant material. In this connection, he submits that after M/s R. D. Engineers & Co., the Surveyor had filed its report dated 21.04.1994, the same Surveyor filed supplementary/final report dated 8.9.1995 under the heading Re-assessment of fire claim of M/s Navjivan Roller Flour & Pules Mills Ltd. which the insurance company had conveniently avoided to produce before the State Commission. Mr. Mehta, referring to the said report, urged that there was no justification for the insurance company to repudiate the claim because whatever doubts, they could have entertained on the basis of the earlier report dated 21.04.1994, were duly clarified and the things were made crystal clear in respect of the extent of loss suffered by the complainant as also the inter se liability of the respondents-insurance companies, i.e., the New India Assurance Company Limited and United India Insurance Company Ltd. He further contends that the United India Insurance Company Ltd. has not only settled the claim of the complainant to their entire satisfaction but also paid a sum of Rs.5,14,798.91/- in excess which he is liable to refund and the respondent-the New India Assurance Company Ltd. is liable to reimburse the same to the United India Insurance Company Ltd. out of the additional claim payable by the letter to the complainant. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Chawla supports the judgment but he is not in a position to throw light on the circumstances under which the subsequent report dated 8.9.1995 of the Surveyor could not be produced before the State Commission during the pendency of the complaint. The fact remains that this important document was left out of consideration of the State Commission and if it had been considered, perhaps the fate of the complaint would not be the same. The main defence of the respondent-insurance company that the policy in question did not cover the loss or damage to the empty gunny bags has also not been considered and answered by the State Commission. In our view, the matter requires re-consideration by the State Commission, keeping in view the said defence raised by the insurance company as also both the reports of the Surveyor. 4. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the State Commission dismissing the complaint is hereby set aside and the complaint is remitted back to the State Commission for deciding the same afresh, preferably, within a period of three months after taking into account all the relevant material including the report dated 8.9.1995 filed by the Surveyor. The parties are left to bear their own cost. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 25.03.2010. Dasti to both the parties. afresh
......................JR.C. JAINPRESIDING MEMBER ......................ANUPAM DASGUPTAMEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
