AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjib Banerjee, J.—The petitioners complain of the effective repudiation of the petitioners'' claim by the respondent Insurance Company on the ground that documents sought by the Insurance Company or the surveyor had not been furnished.
In fact, the Insurance Company did not technically repudiate the claim, but informed the petitioners that in the absence of the petitioners producing the documents in support of the claim, the relevant file was being closed.
Following an inspection by the surveyor, a detailed demand was made on the petitioner company by a letter dated November 28,2005 for particulars of machinery, furniture, stocks and other material being produced. The petitioners replied on April 11,2006 claiming a total amount of Rs. 1,22,95,250/- on account of stock in process, finished goods, repairs, replacement of machinery and repair of building. The petitioners'' letter promised that supporting documents would follow, but no other material was furnished in support of the claim.
The surveyor complained to the petitioner company on November 14,2006 that the company had failed to prove and establish the claim. Thereafter by a letter dated January 8,2008, the Insurance Company cited the surveyor''s letter to indicate that it was closing the file.
The petitioners submit that even the surveyor''s letter of November 28,2005 would demonstrate that a fire had indeed broken out at the unit and that there was some damage to the factory building and to some material. The petitioners say that at the very least the petitioner was entitled to damages to a lesser extent than claimed, but the entire claim could not have been thrown out on the ground that the petitioners did not furnish the requisite documents.
It is submitted by the Insurance Company that in the absence of the petitioners furnishing the particulars relating to the machines and the goods and the costs of acquisition thereof, the Insurance Company and its surveyor would be hard-pressed to assess the loss or compute the amount that the petitioner company would be entitled to.
Since it is evident from the surveyor''s letter of November 28,2005 that the fire had taken place and there was some damage to the building and some cables and other material, the Insurance Company will cause its surveyor to make an assessment of the loss on the basis of the earlier inspection of the surveyor without taking into account any claim made by the petitioner company which the petitioner company has not substantiated with any document. It is made clear that no further document will be accepted from the petitioners in support of the claim and the Insurance Company and surveyor will be entitled to draw any adverse inference from the petitioners'' non-supply of documents and make allowance for such loss which, on the visual assessment of the surveyor, would be payable in respect of the claim.
A reasoned order of the Insurance Company should be made within a period of eight weeks from date.
W.P. No. 1039 of 2009 is disposed of without any order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.