Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/57

M/s Parveen Knitwears - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Y.K.Gandhi Adv.

14 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:57 dated 29.01.2019.                                                Date of decision: 14.02.2023.

 

M/s. Parveen Knitwears Regd., B-XXIV-2727, Sunder Nagar, Ludhiana through its Partner Shri Nem Chand Jain.                                                                                                                                           ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office – III earlier at Gulmohar Hotel Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana and now shifted to 2^nd Floor, Batra Plaza Building, Opposite Silver Arc Mall, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana through its Senior Divisional Manager.                                                                                                                                                                   …..Opposite party 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Yogesh Gandhi, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Sh. M.R. Saluja, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that M/s. Parveen Knitwears, a partnership concern through its partner Sh. Nem Chand Jain obtained a Marine Cargo Open Policy bearing No.2009002115P109460078 from the opposite party for a premium of Rs.2851/- having validity from 09.11.2015 to midnight of 08.11.2016 for total sum assured of Rs.50 Lakhs covering all types of risk to the consignment of hosiery goods and all types of knitted cloth, yarn or other goods of similar nature of the complainant dispatched vide road and rail from Ludhiana to anywhere in India. The said insurance was to remain in force for a period of 12 months unless sum insured is previously exhausted by declaration. Further the policy stipulates that adequate sum insured should be available for the relevant dispatches for RR (Railway Receipts), LR (Lorry Receipts), BL (Bill of landing) and AWB (Air Way Bills). Further the goods delivered by hand and not dispatched through rail and road were not covered and was not required to be declared to opposite party by the complainant. The sum insured of Rs.50 Lakhs was enhanced to Rs.1 Crore on the payment of additional premium of RS.2876/- w.e.f. 18.07.2016 to 08.11.2016. The complainant further submitted that in compliance of terms of the policy, he had been submitting monthly declarations during the aforesaid period, details of which have been summarized in para No.4 of the complaint. The sum insured available before the dispatch of the consignment vide bill No.105 dated 18.10.2016 worth Rs.4,25,976/-, bill No.107 dated 19.10.2016 worth Rs.5,72,306/- and bill No.109 dated 19.10.2016 worth Rs.4,27,121/- total amounting to Rs.14,25,403/- is Rs.21,69,487/- and sum insured available after the dispatch of the consignments vide bill No.105 dated 18.10.2016 worth Rs.4,25,976/-, bill No.107 dated 19.10.2016 worth Rs.5,72,306/- and bill No.109 dated 19.10.2016 worth Rs.4,27,121/- comes to Rs.7,44,084/-. The complainant further stated that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, he dispatched a consignment of hosiery goods of M/s. Mahalakshmi Knitwears, Tripur reproduced as under:-

Bill No.	Date	Consignment/GR No.	Bill amount	Name of Transport Co.
105	18.10.2016	1089029	425976/-	Viveka Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
106	19.10.2016	1087984	572306/-	-do-
107	19.10.2016	1087985	427121/-	-do-
		Total	1425403/-
		Add margin @ 10% as per terms of policy	142590/-
		Grand total	1567943/-

The said consignment was dispatched through M/s. Viveka Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Pot No.122-123, Transport Nagar, Ludhiana vide aforesaid GRs for safe carriage and delivery at the destination station to M/s. Mahalakshmi Knitwear, Tripur. The said three consignments were completely damaged due to the fire which occurred during the night of 23.10.2016 at about 11.45 P.M. at the godown of M/s. Viveka Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd. situated at 61-B, Industrial Area, Near Transport Nagar, Ludhiana. The complainant lodged the claim with M/s. Viveka Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vide letter dated 28.11.2016 as required under the Carriers Act. M/s. Viveka Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd. had also issued the certificate to the complainant dated 08.05.2017 and to the surveyor of opposite party M/s. Duggal Gupta Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. dated 11.11.2016 regarding the damage delivery of the consignment confirming that the goods dispatched vide GR No.1089029, 1087984, 1087985 dated 19.10.2016 Ludhiana to Tripur of M/s. Parveen Knitwears Regd. vide bill No.105 dated 18.10.2016 worth Rs.4,25,976/-, bill No.107 dated 19.10.2016 worth Rs.5,72,306/- and bill No.109 dated 19.10.2016 worth Rs.4,27,121/-  has been damaged in the fire which took place on 23.10.2016. M/s. Viveka Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd. has also lodged a DDR No.6 dated 27.10.2016 with the police giving the details of the consignment damaged in the said fire and said DDR includes the GR No.1089029, 1087984, 1087985 dated 19.10.2016 vide which the complainant had dispatched the consignment. The complainant lodged the claim with the opposite party vide email dated 27.10.2016 upon which M/s. Duggal Gupta Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. was appointed to assess the loss caused to the complainant. The said assessor assessed the loss to Rs.14,18,276/- by deducting the excess clause @0.5% of the consignment value of the goods and without adding 10% to the value of the goods as per invoice in terms of the insurance policy instead of assessing it to be Rs.15,67,943/-.

                   The complainant further stated that instead of settling the claim in terms of the report of M/s. Duggal Gupta Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. or as per the claim lodged by the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the opposite party without taking the permission from IRDA, has appointed M/s. Galaxy Tracers & Recovery Consultants, New Delhi as investigators and CA Naresh Kalra, Surveyor and Loss for verification of declaration of the complainant. Appointment of M/s. Galaxy Tracers & Recovery Consultants as well as CA Naresh Kalra is against the IRDA guidelines and their reports are not enforceable in the eyes of law. M/s. Galaxy Tracers & Recovery Consultants made thorough investigation and prepared report dated 30.03.2017 stating that the net loss is Rs.14,25,403/- and has not added 10% of the invoice value in terms of insurance policy. CA Naresh Kalra had verified the books of account and records relating to sales made by the complainant from 09.11.2015 to 19.10.2016 and prepared his false and fabricated report dated 25.09.2017 in connivance and at the instance of opposite party by including 16 consignments which wren to dispatched through road/rail but were delivered by hand and as such, are not required to be declared under the marine cargo insurance policy obtained by the complainant by stating that there is a negative balance of Rs.14,74,418/- on the date of loss i.e. 23.10.2016. The details consisting of 16 consignments is bill No.105 dated 19.11.2015 of Rs.2,90,259/-, No.113 dated 24.11.2015 of Rs.33,902/-, No.114 dated 24.11.2015 of Rs.41,908/-, No.107 dated 24.11.2015 of Rs.1,56,565/-, No.115 dated 26.11.2015 of Rs.1,98,883/-,  No.127 dated 03.12.2015 of Rs.64,910/-, No.140 dated 12.12.2015 of Rs.1,90,312/-, No.169 dated 02.01.2016 of Rs.1,35,387/-, No.170 dated 02.01.2016 of Rs.1,12,430/-, No.175 dated of Rs.1,09,559/-, No.176 dated 11.01.2016 of Rs.1,07,750/-, No.177 dated 12.01.2016 of Rs.1,06,054/-, No.96 dated 07.10.2016 of Rs.94,026/-, No.97 dated 08.10.2016 of Rs.1,49,198/-, No.101 dated 13.10.2016 of Rs.84,141/- and No.102 dated 13.10.2016 of Rs.2,23,039/- total Rs.20,98,325/- and bill No.11 dated 21.10.2016 of Rs.1,67,558/-  issued after the loss though included in report after calculating the sum insured. In the said invoices it is stated “cloth delivered” “against the head GR/RR/RP No.: Transport” and the amount of insurance/freight charges are not included in the invoice value. But the CA Naresh Kalra included the said invoices in his report though the same were not required to be declared being not dispatched through rail and road and there was a sufficient credit balance of Rs.20,98,325/- on 23.10.2016 as per his report however the credit balance required to cover the said consignment is Rs.14,25,403/- . The complainant further submitted that he has been requesting the opposite party to settle the claim verbally as well as vide letter dated 08.03.2018, 27.02.2018, 22.01.2018, 23.06.2017 and 28.10.2016 but the opposite party repudiated the claim vide letter dated 14.02.2018 illegally, arbitrarily on flimsy grounds against the terms and conditions of the policy and law of the land on the ground that there was a negative balance of Rs.14,74,418/- on the date of loss i.e. 23.10.2016 as per report of CA Naresh Kalra. The said repudiation is illegal, arbitrary and is against the provisions of insurance policy and IRDA guidelines on the grounds mentioned in sub para (a) to (o) and in these grounds, the complainant has assailed the reports of M/s. Duggal Gupta Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Galaxy Tracers & Recovery Consultants and CA Naresh Kalra on the ground that he has fully complied with the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant further added that there is unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite party in repudiating his genuine claim knowing that there is a sufficient balance of the sum insured under the policy which covers the loss on the date of loss. In the end, the complainant prayed for setting aside the repudiation letter dated 08.02.2018 and for issuing direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.15,67,943/- being invoice value of No.105 dated 18.10.2016, No.107 and No.109 dated 19.10.2016 along with 10% as additional amount indicated under the marine insurance policy No.2009002115P109460078. The complainant further prayed for issuing direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.2 Lakhs as compensation for deficiency in service and for causing mental tension, torture, financial loss etc. and Rs.55,000/- as cost of litigation.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed written statement. In the written statement, the opposite party assailed the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, lack of competency on the part of the complainant, matter in dispute being commercial in nature. The opposite party alleged that the complainant was duty bond to furnish the detail of the goods sold to the purchaser outside of Punjab but the complainant failed to submit the details of the goods sold to the parties out of Punjab which they were bound to submit within one month from the date of sale. The complainant failed to declare and submit the report of the goods sold vide bill No.105 worth Rs.4,25,976/-, bill No.107 worth Rs.5,72,306 and bill No.109 worth Rs.4,27,121/- total worth of Rs.14,25,403/-. The opposite party further alleged that the books of the complainant were inspected by the CA Naresh Kalra and the surveyor Mr. Duggal Gupta Insurance Surveyor and he submitted his report dated 25.09.2017 in which he stated that the complainant failed to submit the declaration of the goods sold to their customer living out of Punjab vide bill No.105 worth of Rs.4,25,976/-, bill No.107 worth of Rs.5,72,306 and bill No.109 worth of Rs.4,27,121/- total of all the bills is Rs.14,25,403/- and which shows that they actually did not sell the goods to the parties out of Punjab and as a result the amount of the compensation claimed by the complainant was not payable by the opposite party as the complainant failed to sell the goods of above said three bills and is not entitled to the loss on account of those three bills. Moreover, the complainant could not prove his claim by any document and the opposite party repudiated the claim of the claimant for the reason mentioned that as per report of Sh. Naresh Kalra, CA dated 25.09.2017, the insured had made total declaration of Rs.93,76,093/- (sale value of the goods sold to the purchaser out of Punjab) but on verification from the books of account and other relevant record of the complainant/insured it was found by the CA that the complainant did not send declaration of 16 consignments of Rs.20,98,325/- (sale value). The total declarable amount (sale out of Punjab) comes to Rs.1,14,74,418/- accordingly there was negative balance of Rs. 14,74,418/- as on the alleged date of loss dated 23.10.2016 which shows there was no available balance in the account books on the date of loss.

                   The opposite party further alleged that the claimant is not entitled to the claim because the loss occurred not due to the negligence of the opposite party but due to the negligence of the transport company namely M/s. Viveka Logistics Solutions Private Limited, Plot No.122-123, Transport Nagar, Ludhiana due to fire and the transport company did not take any efforts to save the goods of the consignment of above said three bills from fire and to save the goods from the fire negligently and carelessly or the transport company would have already sent the goods to the purchasers or concealed the goods by not sending the goods to the purchaser three bills No.105, 107 and 109 total of Rs.14,25,403/- i.e. bill No.105 worth Rs.4,25,976/-, bill No.107 worth Rs.5,72,306 and bill No.109 worth Rs.4,27,121/- negligently to the purchaser M/s. Maha Laxmi, Tripur and the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the said transport company for the loss caused by them and thus the opposite party is not liable to pay any claim as they are not negligent in causing loss to the complainant/insured. The complainant has filed the claim of the damaged goods with transport M/s. Viveka Logistics Solutions Private Limited. The opposite party might have received their alleged loss from the said transport company. The complainant has no right to claim loss from the opposite party because opposite party is not negligent in causing loss to the complainant and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                   On merits, the opposite party reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. The opposite party alleged that the complaint is false and Sh. Nem Chand Jain was not competent to file the present complaint nor the complainant was a partnership concern at the time of filing the complaint and at the time of alleged loss by fire. The opposite party further alleged that the accounts books of the complainant were inspected by the surveyor. The complainant has failed to prove the loss by producing relevant and genuine documents and he was bound to submit the details of the goods sold and supplied to his customers on monthly basis in respect of the consignment sold and sent to his purchaser party. However, the opposite party admitted that the complainant did not send description of the three bills No.105 worth Rs.4,25,976/-, bill No.107 worth Rs.5,72,306 and bill No.109 worth Rs.4,27,121/- total worth of Rs.14,25,403/- to it. The details of 16 bills mentioned under the head details of the calculation of the declaration and the available balance of the complainant submitted by the CA Mr. Naresh Kalra was not found in the account books of the complainant when inspected by the said CA and the details of the description was not sent by the complainant to the opposite party. Actually the complainant sold the goods worth of Rs.1,14,74,418/- during the period from 09.11.2015 to 08.11.2016 but he made declaration of sale of Rs.93,76,093/- and the complainant has not declared the sale of 16 consignments of Rs.20,98,325/- as per the inspection made by the CA Naresh Kalra. Moreover, the surveyor Duggal Gupta Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. but the opposite party is not liable to pay the claim as Properly the complainant did not maintain the accounts properly and intentionally did not submit the declaration of the bills vide which they sold the goods to the purchasers out of Punjab. As a result, the complainant intentionally and fraudulently wants to get wrong and false claim of the above said three bills No.105, 107 and 109. Actually the goods of the above said three bills were damaged due to fire occurred in the godown of the transport company and thus they are liable to pay the claim to the complainant. There is no clause in the Insurance policy to add 10% to the value of the goods as per the invoices by the surveyor. The opposite party in its reply also justified that the reports of CA Naresh Kalra and surveyor Mr. Duggal Gupta Insurance Surveyor are legal and based upon the evidence. The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated. Moreover, the complainant withdrew the claim being found false and illegal. The opposite party denied any negligence and deficiency in service on its part and in the end, has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                The complainant filed replication controverting the facts mentioned in the written statement and reiterating the averments mentioned in the complaint. The complainant submitted that he has duly disclosed the invoices No.105, 107 and 109 showing details of the goods sold to the purchaser outside Punjab through road and rail which are covered under the marine insurance policy obtained and the claim is lodged in respect of the said invoices dispatched vide GR No.1089029, 1087984, 1087985 dated 19.10.2016 ex- Ludhiana to Tripur through M/s. Vivek Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd. which was damaged in the fire took place on 23.10.2016. The complainant submitted that he has furnished all the details of the goods sold vide bill No.105, 107 and 109 respectively and documents were submitted to M/s. Duggal Gupta, Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. who after considering all the documents assessed the loss to Rs. 14,18,276/-. There was a sufficient balance in the sum assured in the policy amounting to Rs.21,69,487/- on the date of dispatch of the consignment No.105 dated 18.10.2016 worth Rs.4,25,976/-, bill No.107 dated 19.10.2016 worth Rs.5,72,306 and bill No.109 dated 19.10.2016 worth Rs.4,27,121/- total amounting to Rs. 14,25,403/- plus add on 10% of the invoice value in terms of insurance policy amounting to Rs.1,42,540/- total claim amount of Rs.15,67,943/-. The goods against the aforesaid bills were sold actually and as such, the amount of compensation claimed by the complainant is payable by the opposite party.

4.                In support of his claim, Sh. Nem Chand Jain, Partner of the complainant firm tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of partnership deed, Ex. C2 and Ex. C3 are the copies of Form-A and Form-C respectively, Ex. C4 to Ex. C7 are the affidavits of Chander Parkash Jain, Sukhendu Mondak, Gautam Kapoor and Valji Ramji Anawadia respectively, Ex. C8, Ex. C37, Ex. C74, Ex. C116 and Ex. C117 are the copies of email, Ex. C9 and Ex. C10 are the copies of letters dated 18.05.2018 and 14.02.2018 respectively, Ex. C11 to Ex. C13 is the copy of report of CA Naresh Kalra, Ex. C14 is the endorsement of insurance policy, Ex. C15, Ex. C17 to Ex.C28 is the copy of marine declaration, Ex. C16, Ex. C29 and Ex. C30 are the copies of letters dated 03.08.2017, 05.08.2017 and 14.07.2017 respectively, Ex. C31 to Ex. C33 is the copy of GR, Ex. C34 to Ex. C36 are the copy of invoice, Ex. C38 is the copy of report of Galaxy Tracers and Recovery Consultants, Ex. C39 is the copy of certificate facts, Ex. C40 is the copy of letter dated 21.03.2017, Ex. C41 is the copy of letter of Viveka Logistics Solution Pvt. Ltd., Ex. C42 is the copy of DDR, Ex. C43 is the copy of fire call report dated 08.11.2016, Ex. C44 is the details of consignment damage, Ex. C45 is the copy of letter dated 21.03.2017, Ex. C46 is the copy of claim bill, Ex. C47 and Ex. C48 are the copies of letters dated 28.11.2016 and 03.03.2017 respectively, Ex. C49 to Ex. C64 are the copies of report of Duggal Gupta Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. along with annexures attached with the report, Ex. C65 and Ex. C66 are the envelope and postal receipt, Ex. C67, Ex. C75, Ex. C76, Ex. C103, Ex. C109, Ex. C118 are the copies of letters dated 14.02.2018, 21.03.2017, 09.12.2016, 03.08.2017, 14.07.2017, 22.03.2017 respectively, Ex. C73 is the copy of policy, Ex. C77 is the copy of marine claim form, Ex. C78 is the copy of claim bill, Ex. C79 to Ex. C81 are the copies of invoices, Ex. C82 to Ex. C84 are the copies of GR, Ex. C85 and Ex. C86 are the copies of letter dated 28.11.2016 and postal receipt, Ex. C87 is the copy of insurance policy, Ex. C88 to Ex. C93 are the statement of account, Ex. C99 to Ex. C102, Ex. C104 to Ex. C108 are the declaration, Ex. C110 to Ex. C112 are the copies of GR, Ex. C113 to Ex. C115 are the copies of invoices, Ex. C119 to ex. C121 are the certificate of facts, Ex. C122 is the copy of DDR, Ex. C123, Ex. C125 is the copy of letter dated 28.11.2016, 05.11.2016, Ex. C124, Ex. C132 are the copies of emails, Ex. C126 to Ex. C130 is the letter of Viveka Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Ex. C131 is the copy of insurance policy, Ex. C133, Ex. C184, Ex. C196, Ex. C198, Ex. C206, Ex. C218, Ex. C219, Ex. C226, Ex. C261 and Ex. C289 are the copies of declaration, Ex. c134 to Ex. C183, Ex., C185 to Ex. C195, Ex. C197, Ex. C199 to Ex. C205, Ex. C207 to Ex. C217, Ex. C220 to Ex. C225, Ex. C227 to Ex. C260 are the copies of invoices, Ex. C262 to Ex. C288 are the account statement, Ex. C290 is the copy of letter dated 08.03.2018, Ex. C291 is the copy of postal receipt and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Ms. Lipi Moitra, Assistant Manager of the opposite party along with documents Ex. RI is Marine Cargo Open Policy from 09.11.2015 to 08.11.2016, Ex. RI/A is the endorsement schedule of Marine Cargo Open Policy, Ex. R2 is the copy of final survey report of Duggal Gupta Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd., Ex. R3 is the copy of report dated 25.09.2017 of CA Naresh Kalra, Ex. R4 is the copy of report dated 30.03.2017 of Galaxy Tracers and Recovery Consultants, Ex. R5 is the copy of repudiation letter dated 14.02.2018 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, rejoinder, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.

7.                Undisputably, the complainant firm had obtained the Marine Cargo Open Policy Ex. C87 initially for a sum of Rs.50 Lakhs on 09.11.2015 which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.1 Crore by paying an additional premium w.e.f. 18.07.2016. Further the complainant was required to submit declaration on monthly basis with regard to dispatch of consignment from Ludhiana to anywhere specifying particulars of bill i.e. its number, date, amount, description of goods, parties name, destination etc. and summary of the sum insured and the balance sum available under the policy. Perusal of bill No.105 dated 18.10.2016 (Ex. C34), bill No.107 dated 19.10.2016 (Ex. C35) and bill No.109 dated 19.10.2016 (Ex. C36), the consignments of hosiery were dispatched to M/s. Mahalaxmi Knitwear, Tripur through M/s. Viveka Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (herein after called as transporter) at 61-B, Industrial Area, Near Transport Nagar, Ludhiana. In the intervening night of 23/24.10.2016 fire broke out in the godown of the transporter resulting in loss to the stored goods.

8.                On the receipt of the claim, preferred by the complainant, M/s. Duggal Gupta Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. was appointed who gave his report Ex. R2 after inspecting the premises of the transporter at Plot No.61-B, Industrial Area, Near Transport Nagar, Ludhiana and assessing the maximum liability of the opposite parties to be Rs.14,18,276/- subject to admissibility of the claim as per terms and conditions of the policy.

9.                 M/s. Galaxy Tracers & Recovery Consultants was also appointed as investigator to pursue the comprehensive investigation: After due investigation, they submitted the report Ex. R4 and concluded as under:-

• During investigation with the concern carrier, consignor, Police Station, Fire Brigade Station and according their records and according the incident spot local citizens, it was revealed that the incident was fact, on 23.10.2016 night the said material complete burnt and ash due to sparking in the electrical connection in the warehouse around midnight, the material then stored in the warehouse got burnt in the fire.
• The fire accident admitted under D.D.R. No.26 dated 27.10.2017 at Division No.6, Police Station, Ludhiana.
• According to Fire Brigade Station, the incident was fact and total consignment with warehouse have been burnt and ash. They could not save any consignments in this case.

THE ASSESSMENT OF LOSS AS PER INVOICE

Invoice No.	Description of Goods	Qty/Pieces	Rate	Loss Amount
105	Knitted Cloth	891.870 KGS	330.00	4,25,976.00
	Knitted Cloth	360.010 KGS	365.00
106	Knitted Cloth	1212.930 KGS	330.00	5,72,306.00
	Knitted Cloth	470.400 KGS	365.00
107	Knitted Cloth	889.780 KGS	330.00	4,27,121.00
	Knitted Cloth	365.080 KGs	365.00
	Total			14,25,403.00

Net loss of assessment Rs.14,25,403.00 in words (Rupees Fourteen Lakh Twenty Five Thousand Four Hundred Three only)

10.              Further Mr. Naresh Kalra, CA was appointed to verify the declarations of the complainant firm. Mr. Naresh Kalra, as per his report Ex. R3, checked and verified the books of accounts and records relating to the sales made by the complainant firm from 09.11.2015 to 19.10.2016 Mr. Naresh Kalra, CA concluded that 'the insured had made total declarations (i.e. sale value outside Punjab) of Rs.93,76,093/-. But as verified from books of accounts and other relevant records, the insured had not declared the sales value of 16 consignments amounting to Rs.2098325/ and total declarable amounts (i.e. sales outside Punjab) comes to Rs.11474418/-. Accordingly there was negative balance of Rs.1474418/- as on date of loss i.e. 23.10.2016. In other words, there was no available balance as on date of loss."

11.              On the basis of the report of Sh. Naresh Kalra, vide Ex. R5, the opposite parties closed the claim file of the complainant firm as "NO CLAIM" with following observation:-

'As per CA Naresh Kalra's report the insured had made total declarations (i.e. sale value outside Punjab) of Rs.93.76,093/-. But as verified from books of accounts and other relevant records, the insured had not declared 16 consignments of Rs.20,98,325/- (sales value). Total declarable amounts (i.e. sales outside Punjab) comes to Rs. 1,14,74,418/- Accordingly there was negative balance of Rs. 14,74,418/-as on date of loss i.e. 23.10.2016. So company is not liable to pay the claim."

12.              The point of determination arises whether the non-declaration of 16 consignments of sales value to Rs.20,98,325/- resulted in the negative balance of Rs.14,74,418/- as on the date of loss i.e.23.10.2016 or not.

13.              Perusal of report of both investigations M/s. Duggal Gupta Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Galaxy Tracers & Recovery Consultants shows the verification of the fact that the fire broke in the premises of the transporter which has resulted destruction of goods in the fire inclusive of three consignments dispatched by the complainant firm. However, Mr. Naresh Kalra, CA on verification of account books and other relevant records found that 16 consignments meant for sale outside Punjab were not declared by the complainant firm. In order to rebut the same, the complainant has produced invoices of said consignments from Ex. C246 to Ex. C260. Perusal of these invoices shows that GR/RR number have not been mentioned in these bills which shows that the goods were not entrusted to any transporter or carrier for its onward delivery beyond the area of Punjab. Rather there is a remark that the goods/clothes have been delivered. In order to further corroborate this fact, the complainant has obtained duly sworn affidavits of Chander Parkash Jain, Partner of M/s. Star Textiles, Kolkata, Sukhendu Mondak, Partner of M/s. Nripendra Chandra Modak & Co., Kolkata, Gautam Kapoor, Prop. of M/s. V.K. Overseas, Bangalore and Valji Ramji Anawadia, Prop. of M/s. Girls Fashion, Mumbai as Ex. C4 to Ex. C7. In all these affidavits, deponents have declare that their representative took the delivery of the goods by hand from the premises of the complainant at Ludhiana and these consignments were never dispatched through transport to their business place. It appears that Mr. Naresh Kalra, CA has not taken these material evidence into consideration at the time of verification of books and records of the complainant firm which lead to arriving of wrong conclusion. Once it is found that the occurrence had taken place in the manner the complainant has intimated to the competent authorities, then the opposite parties are not required to be too technical while processing and settling the claim. As such, the opposite parties were not justified in denying the claim of the complainant.

14.              In this regard, reference can be made to 2022(2) Apex Court Judgment 281 (SC) in case title Gurmel Singh Vs Branch Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. whereby it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the insurance company has become too technical while settling the claim and has acted arbitrarily. In many cases, it is found that the insurance companies are refusing the claim on flimsy grounds and/or technical grounds. While settling the claims, the insurance company should not be too technical and ask for the documents, which the insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control.”

M/s. Galaxy Tracers and Recovery Consultants vide Ex. R4 has given his report and has assessed the insurance company's liability as Rs.14,25,403/-. The complainant has not controverted the facts mentioned in the written statement, so far as the surveyor report Ex. R4 is concerned as the complainant has neither filed any objections to controvert the averments made in the written statement. 15.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the opposite parties shall pay the claim of Rs. 14,25,403/- to the complainant as per survey report Ex. R4 along with interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till date of actual payment. The opposite parties shall further pay composite costs of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

16.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                       Member                     Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated: 14.02.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

 

 

M/s. Parveen Knitwears Vs United India Insurance      CC/19/57

Present:       Sh. Yogesh Gandhi, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. M.R. Saluja, Advocate for OP.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the opposite parties shall pay the claim of Rs. 14,25,403/- to the complainant as per survey report Ex. R4 along with interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till date of actual payment. The opposite parties shall further pay composite costs of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                       Member                     Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated: 14.02.2023.

Gobind Ram.