Haryana

StateCommission

A/420/2015

KALU RAM MAHABIR PRASAD - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

VARUN GUPTA

11 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                                         First Appeal No.420 of 2015

Date of Institution: 06.05.2015

                                                               Date of Decision: 11.08.2016

 

M/s Kalu Ram Mahabir Prasad, New Mandi, Narnaul through partner Mahabir Prasad, New Mandi, Narnaul.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

1. United India Insurance Company Ltd. MICO Office Near Bus Stand, Rewari Road Nornaul through its Manager.
2. United India Insurance Company Ltd.  Regional Office 14, 4 New Colony (SBI) Gurgaon through its Divisional Manager.

                                      …..Respondents

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:              Shri Varun Gupta, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

Mr. B.S.Taunque, Advocate counsel for the respondents.

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

It was alleged by the complainant that he obtained flood insurance policy from opposite parties (O.Ps.) for the period 22.11.2007 to 21.11.2008.  On 28.06.2008 water entered the shop because there was heavy rain and his 550 bags of sugar valuing Rs.1550/- each and 200 half bags valuing Rs.1550/- per quintal were damaged and he suffered loss to the tune of Rs.10,07,500/-.  He immediately gave information to State Bank of Patiala and Manager came to the spot.  He gave information to insurance company. Thereafter Harpal Singh Surveyor conducted temporary survey and found his loss to be correct.  Lateron Dalip Kumar conducted final survey and submitted his report admitting his loss to be correct.  O.Ps. passed claim of Rs.8000/- on 21.07.2009 as full and final settlement.  He requested to pay full compensation, but, to no avail. Hence the complaint.

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that he did not suffer loss to the tune of Rs.10,07,500/-.  As per report of surveyor his loss was assessed to the tune of Rs.8000/-.  He was asked to submit discharge voucher etc., but, he did not come forward.  Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul, allowed compensation to the tune of Rs.1,21,274/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from 28.02.2009 as per surveyor report Annexure R-2.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal on the ground that loss assessed by the insurance company and granted  by learned District Forum was on lower side. Engineer Dalip Kumar also conducted survey and assessed loss to the tune of Rs.15,54,000/-, so  compensation be granted accordingly.

6.      Arguments heard. File perused.

7.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that  Dalip Kumar was appointed as surveyor by insurance company and he assessed loss to the tune of Rs.15,54,000/-, whereas the company allowed the claim of Rs.8000/- only.  Learned District Forum granted compensation to the tune of Rs.1,21,274/- which is on lower side.  Actually he suffered loss to the tune of Rs.10,07,500/- and the same be awarded to him.  Insurance company  did not bring the terms and conditions of insurance company to it’s notice,  So excess clause was not applicable.  In support of his arguments he placed reliance upon the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in United India Insurance Company ltd. and Anr.  Vs. Subhash Chandra III (2010 CPJ 5 (NC).

8.      This argument is devoid of any force. The complainant cannot derive any benefit from the cited case law because that pertains to illiterate person whereas it is a business concern. As per insurance policy, complainant is running a business and is educated person. It cannot expect from him that he signed blank papers because he must be aware about the consequences of signing blank documents. Had he been a layman then it could have been a different matter.  Hon’ble Supreme Court  has opined in M/s Grasim Industries Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s Agarwal Steel 2010 (1) SCC 83 as under:-

“Evidence Act, 1872, Section 114-Document signed by  party-there is a presumption, unless there is proof of fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood-Presumption is stronger in case of businessmen they being careful people.”

           So it is to be presumed that proposal form was signed by complainant after going through the contents of the same.

9.      Further as per arguments of complainant’s counsel it cannot be accepted that Dalip Kumar assessed loss to the tune of Rs. 15,54,000/-. In his report Annexure R-2, he has shown Rs.15,54,000/- as price of Sugar and rice. The relevant portion of report is as under:-

“The value of stock of sugar 646 qtls. @ Rs.1500/- per qtl.  is Rs.9,69,000/-. The value of stock of rice 450 qtls @ 1300/- per qtl. is Rs.5,85,000/-. Thus the total value of stock with M/s Kalu Ram Mahaavir Prasad is of Rs.15,54,000/-.”

          As per this report it cannot be presumed that he assessed loss to this extent.  His observations/assessment about loss in Annexure R-2 are as under:-

“Assessment:

i.	Stock of sugar at Nai Mandi premises C damaged 12x100 kgs. @ Rs.15/- per kg.	18,000.00
ii.	Stock of sugar at Godown in premises A, B & D (78+26+20=124 x 100=12,400 kgs.) @ Rs.15/- per kg.	1,86,000.00
	Total value of sugar damaged	2,04,000.00
The sum insured of the stock is Rs.10,00,000/- whereas the stock worth Rs.15,54,000/- was with insured.  Thus this stock is under insured considering the average clause, the loss is calculated to be Rs.1,31,274/-.
	10,00,000.00x2,04,000.00 15,54,000.00 (-) Excess clause Total assessed loss of stock lying with insured	1,31,274.00 10,000.00     1,21,274.00
In my opinion, the loss of sugar lying at premises C of M/s Kalu Ram Mahavir Prasad, Nai Mandi, Narnaul is only payable and that is
	(-) Excess clause Payable loss	Rs.18,000.00 Rs.10,000.00 8,000.00”

From the perusal of this report, it is clear that the total loss assessed by him was to Rs.1,21,274/-.  Report of surveyor is on the higher pedestal and cannot be brushed aside without any cogent reason as per opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jyothi tobacco Traders IV (2012) CPJ 103 (NC) and Puranmal Vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. 1 (2016) CPJ 280 (NC)  (case law cited by the respondent’s counsel).  Learned District Forum has taken into consideration each and every aspect from every angle and there is no reason to disturb the impugned order.  Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

August 11th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K