DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.422/17
M/s Satia Industries Ltd. Village Rupana
Sri MuktsarSahib-150232 (Punjab_
Through its Company Secretary
Shri Rakesh Kumar Dhuria …Complainant
VERSUS
United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Branch Office, 42 C, 3rd Floor
Moolchand Commercial Complex
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-110024
Through its Senior Branch Manager
Sapient Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd.
Suraj Bhan, L-83 Lajpat Nagar-2
New Delhi-110024, Through its Director …Opposite Parties
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Date of Institution :14.12.2017
Date of Order : 05.08.2022
Member: Shri U.K.Tyagi
Complainant has requested to pass an award directing the United India Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP) to pay (i) an amount of Rs.12,65,853/- alongwith interest @9% from 12.08.2013 till realisation; (ii) an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service, mental agony etc.; (iii) an amount of Rs.50,000/- as exemplary cost for inordinate delay; (iv)an amount of Rs.25,000/- as litigation charges etc. etc.
Brief facts of the case are as under:-
The complainant had obtained a Marine Cargo Open Policy for the period 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 for inland transits for the sum insured of Rs.200 Crore and paid Rs. 1,10,301/- as premium. The insurance cover was for all Risks basis and valuation was agreed for CIF plus 10%. The copy of Insurance Policy is enclosed as annexure-C/2. The complainant had sent a consignment of Rs.51 paper reels to the Director, Text Book Production & Marketing – Bhubaneshwar under invoice No.3765 dated 02.02.2013 for Rs.12,65,853/- vide GR 3385 dated 02.02.2013 from Muktsar to Bhubaneshwar. A copy of same is enclosed as Annexure-C-6.
The vehicle carrying the above consignment met with an accident on 12.02.2013 at TATA City 50 km short of Bhubaneswar. An intimation was given to OP-1 on 12.02.2013. OP-1 deputed the surveyor i.e. M/s Sapient Surveyors & loss Assessors. The said Surveyor conducted survey at site of accident on 14.02.2013 and later on at consignee’s premises 01.04.2013, 16.05.2013 & 17.05.2013. The complainant lodged a monetary claim on carrier vide letter dated 06.04.2013 informing that the consignment was entrusted to your charge, care and custody. The D.P. Transport Tinkoni Monga Rd – Kotkapura issued a damage certificate dated 10.04.2013. The complainant completed all requirements as desired by surveyor and took up the matter with OP vide letter dated 30.08.2013. A copy of letter is enclosed as Annexure –C-12. Many letters/e-mails were sent to know the status of the claim but no response was received from OP. At last, RTI application and appeal thereto was filed. The Appellate Authority provided copy of the claim vide letter dated 08.08.2016 containing various letters & survey report etc. M/s Sapient – Surveyor sent the report on 22.05.2013 seeking consent of the complainant on the same and assessment was made to the tune of Rs.5,95,007/-. It is alleged that the OP with prejudiced mind pressurised surveyor for insurance of another survey report and assessment so made was reduced to the amount of Rs.3,91,755/-. Copies of the both Survey Reports annexed as annexure C-19/20. It was also stated by Surveyor that the value of salvage for the full value of Rs.12,65,853/- may be calculated and disposed of at their end.
The complainant took the matter with CMD of OP. The complainant received a letter dated 12.09.2016 repudiating the claim on frivolous grounds. Further stating that there were discrepancies between versions of driver. FIR was not found lodged in Police Station. Consignment was not handed over to carrier in safe condition. The copy of the repudiation letter dated 12.09.2016 is enclosed as annexure-27.
As such, the OP violated the rule as mentioned in Policy holder Protection Regulation and Surveyor also violated the provisions of IRDA Regulations as Surveyor had not submitted the report as per time schedule mentioned therein. Moreover he submitted two reports under the pressure of OP. Both the reports were prepared behind the complainant and no consent of complainant was sought. Hence, non-settlement of claim within the prescribed period as provided in IRDA in the Policyholder Protection Regulation amounts to deficiency in service.
OP, on the other hand, submitted its reply inter alia raising some preliminary objections. It was stated that the complainant had not shown 51 packets weighing 27,106 Kg vide GR 3385 of DP Transport to OP before sending to the consignee. It was alleged that monetary claim was lodged on 06.04.2013 which is after 55 days of the alleged loss. The complainant did not lodge any FIR. It is also pointed out that there was variation and discrepancies in respect of statement given by driver reg. accident and cause of accident. As per terms & conditions, the insured was required to tender all reasonable information to the surveyor. The OP was constrained to repudiate the claim. It was also averred by the OP that the complainant has not indicated specifically which rules pertaining to the policy were violated.
Both the parties have filed written submissions and evidence-in-affidavit. Written statement is on record so is rejoinder. Oral arguments were heard and concluded.
This Commission has gone into the material placed before us. Due consideration was also given to the arguments. It is noted that the complainant had a valid insurance cover at the time of the accident of the vehicle on 12.02.2013. The OP has not raised any objection on the insurance cover for the goods/consignment. It was noticed that the complainant was not informed at any stage about the fate of his claim. He got the necessary information through RTI application. The complainant has raised doubt about the genuineness of the Survey Report. The 1st Survey Report, as claimed by the complainant was sent to him 22.05.2013 for his consent. But the M/s Sapient Insurance Surveyor and loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. under the pressure of the OP prepared another Survey Report reducing the claim to the tune of Rs.3,91,755/-. It would be seen from the close examination of both these reports that the 2nd. Report had been dealt with details giving minute detailing of the facts. It was found from both the survey report that 8 Rolls of papers have been shown damaged/torn out/burnt out conditions. The later one, Survey Report gives the details of all 51 Reels – indicating Reel No., Reel Diameter/condition whether cut/torn measurement, extent of damage. As such, the Report has been found assessed as would have been assessed.
The Summary of the damages are tabulated in said Survey Report. The same has been reproduced for favour of ready reference.
Sr. No. | No. of Rolls Despatched | No. of Rolls Received | No. of Rolls Damaged | Remarks |
1. | 07 | 07 | 07 | Partially burnt from different portion/ surface |
2. | 20 | 20 | 20 | Cut/Torn/Damaged |
3. | 23 | 23 | 23 | Not able to run on machine due to core damage |
4. | 01 | 0 | 0 | Completely burnt at accident place & not delivered at consignee premises |
Total | 51 | 50 | 50 | |
The weight of damaged 25 reels was calculated as per Llyod’s formula = 12670 and it is noted that core of 23 reels got damaged and same cannot be seen on high speed machine. Therefore, 23 reels need rewinding to process on machine. The Surveyor assessed the loss which comes to Rs.3,91,755/-. The same has been indicated in the later Survey-report.
This Commission also examined these Survey Reports minutely more particularly keeping in view the objections raised by the complainant on the later survey report. We feel that the survey report indicating the total loss to the extent of Rs.3,91,755/- is assessed professionally. And we would like to appreciate the manner of assessment of loss. The following criteria was adopted to assess the loss in their report
- The quantity claimed by insured was duly verified.
- The rates have been considered as per original invoice provided by the insured.
- The weight of damaged reels have been considered .
- The rewinding cost of 23 reels have been considered Rs.2,000/- per reel which appears reasonable.
It is also observed that the major difference in assessed loss in both the Survey Reports is on account of salvage value. As per norms, the salvage value would have been considered before the final claim is determined. As far as non-lodgement of FIR and delay in intimation are concerned the same are immaterial in this case as loss of material at accident site was confirmed by the surveyor in the instant case. No loss of life and material loss other party was reported during the accident. Moreover, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in catena of judgments that non-completion of formalities should not be only basis of denial of the claim. Each case should be viewed on merit.
After having considered the facts and circumstances in the case, this Commission feels that the OP is directed to pay the assessed value to the tune of Rs.3,91,755/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date institution of this case in this Commission within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which interest shall be levied @ 9% per annum till its realisation.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties as per rules.
