BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No  601 of 2014

Date of Institution: 17.11.2014

Date of Decision:17.12.2015

The Ajnala Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., Bhalla Pind Tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar through its General Manager

Complainant

Versus

United India Insurance Company Ltd., 11-A, Lawrence Road, Amritsar through its Branch Manager

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:    For the Complainant                  :  Sh.Pardeep Mahajan,Advocate

                For the Opposite Party     : Sh.P.N.Khanna,Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by The Ajnala Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. through its General Manager under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein  that complainant society has taken MBD Insurance Policy for a sum of Rs. 365.65 lacs vide cover note No. A697840 by paying premium of Rs. 1,19,239/- for the period from 20.11.2013 to 10.4.2014 and the policy covered schedule of machinery containing 49 items.   According to the complainant during the subsistence of the said policy a sum of Rs. 1,18,872/- was spent vide invoice No. 308 dated 21.2.2014 and Rs. 26000/- vide invoice No. 475 dated 21.2.2014  in favour of H.K. Electricals . The complainant approached the opposite party and intimated the alleged claim vide reference No. ACSM/GM./14/2612 dated 2.5.2014 alongwith the original documents. But the opposite party paid only Rs. 35496/- on 21.7.2014 and balance amount was not paid  and the same is still due to be paid to the complainant. Thereafter a legal notice dated 3.9.2014 was sent to the opposite party to settle the claim , but to no avail. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to  release the balance amount of Rs. 1,09,376/- . Compensation of Rs. 20000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that  on receipt of intimation regarding allegdd loss caused to the machinery insured under MBD Insurance policy, the opposite party deputed independent surveyor Mr. Rajesh Kapoor to assess the loss. The said surveyor accordingly visited the site and assessed the loss from different angles and finally assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 67579/-. The value of the scrap was considered @ Rs. 450/- per kg and as such amount of Rs. 29250/- was deducted from the total loss of Rs. 67579/- and as such liability was arrived at Rs. 38329/-. After deducting excess clause of Rs. 2500/- final liability was fixed at Rs. 35829/-. The opposite party by accepting the said report as correct one ,  and after deduction of Rs. 157/- for reinstating the policy, amount of Rs. 35672/- was paid to the complainant and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Harbakash Singh, General Manager Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex. C-8.
4. Opposite party tendered affidavit of Mr.Baldev Singh, Divisional Manager Ex.OP/1,affidavit of Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Surveyor & Loss assessor Es.OP/2, surveyor report Ex.OP/3 and certified copy of Insurance policy with terms and conditions Ex.OP/4.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the  parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant society obtained MBD Insurance Policy for a sum of Rs. 365.65 from the opposite party vide cover note No.  A697840 Ex.C-7 on payment of premium of Rs. 1,19,239/- for the period from 20.11.2013 to 10.4.2014 covering  schedule of machinery Ex.C-8. During the subsistence of the aforesaid policy, the complainant society spent Rs. 1,18,872/- vide invoice No. 308 dated 21.23.2014 Ex.C-5 and Rs. 26000/- vide invoice dated 21.2.2014 Ex.C-6 in favour of H.K. Electricals for  repair of the machinery duly covered under the aforesaid policy.  The aforesaid machine was insured for a sum of Rs. 1,85,000/- . Claim for a sum of Rs. 1,44,872/- was lodged  with the opposite party vide reference dated 2.5.2014 Ex.C-4. But the opposite party paid a sum of Rs. 35,496/- only on 21.7.2014 and the balance amount of Rs. 1,09,376/- was not paid by the opposite party. The complainant also served legal notice dated 3.9.2014 Ex.C-2 to the opposite party but in vain. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that on receipt of intimation regarding alleged loss caused to the machinery of the complainant insured under MBD Insurance Policy, opposite party deputed independent surveyor Mr. Rajesh Kapoor to  assess the  loss. The said surveyor accordingly visited the site and assessed the loss from all points/different angles and finally assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 67,579/-. The value of scrap was considered @ Rs. 450/- per kg and as such amount of Rs. 29350/- was deducted from the total loss Rs. 67,579/-. As such opposite party was liable to pay Rs. 38,329/- to the complainant society. So after deducting excess clause of Rs. 2500/- final payment of Rs. 35829/- was made to the complainant. So far as reinstatement of the sum assured is concerned, the same was adjusted by the Insurance company. The final report of the surveyor is Ex.OP3 which was duly proved by Sh. Rajesh Kapoor Mechanical Engineer vide his affidavit Ex.OP2. This report is as per terms and conditions of the policy Ex.OP4. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that the complainant could not point out any defect in the report submitted by the surveyor Ex.OP3. As such the opposite party was justified to pay the amount of Rs. 35829/- to the complainant society, therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

8.       From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant has obtained MBD Insurance policy from the opposite party vide cover note Ex.C-7 covering the period from 20.11.2013 to 10.4.2014 and during this period, the complainant got his machinery repaired from H.K.Electricals, Amritsar vide invoice dated 21.2.2014 Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6. The claim was lodged by the complainant with the opposite party vide reference Es.C-4 dated 2.5.2014  claiming an amount of Rs. 1,44,872/-. Resultantly opposite party appointed independent surveyor Er. Rajesh Kapoor to assess the loss, who vide his final survey report Ex.OP3 assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 67579/-. The value of the scrap was assessed Rs.29,250/- which was deducted from the total loss Rs. 67579/- and after deducting excess clause of Rs. 2500/-, opposite party paid the balance amount Rs. 35829/- to the complainant society  and this fact has been admitted by the complainant  society in their written version that the opposite party paid Rs. 35829/-. The report of the surveyor is Ex.OP3 which is detailed one and the same has been proved by the surveyor  vide his affidavit Ex.OP2. In this report, the surveyor has categorically stated that the starter rewinding/repair is allowed, whereas rewinding/repair of rotar was not allowed because  rotor’s side coil was torn off  in consequence to the initial loss because of that , running of unit, the details of which have been fully explained in the report of the surveyor Ex.OP3. The complainant never challenged this report nor examined any expert to rebut the report given by the surveyor Ex.OP3 nor the complainant could point out any defect in the said survey report  nor the complainant could point out any fact or subject matter left un-considered by the surveyor in his report Ex.OP3. It has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in case Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. B.Ramareddy II(2006) CPJ 339 (NC) that surveyor's report is an important piece of evidence. Compensation can be awarded only on the basis of surveyor's report. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Gujarat State Commission in case United India Insurance Co.Ltd and another Vs. Hotel White Rose 2004(3) CLT 494 that surveyor assessment was wrong, burden to prove is on the consumer to establish by producing evidence that what has been left out by the opponents and what has  not correctly and properly assessed by the opponents.

9.       Therefore, we hold that opposite party was justified in allowing the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 35829/- which has been duly paid by the opposite party to the complainant.

10.     Consequently we hold that the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  . Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

17.12.2015                                                           ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

/R/                        ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)           (Anoop Sharma)

Member                                   Member