AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant is the owner of Alok Pipe Enterprises, working at G.T. Road, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad. They took out an insurance policy from the respondent for a sum of Rs. 11.05 lacs for the period from 18.8.89 to 17.8.90 and paid a premium of Rs. 17,275/- for the same.
IT is alleged that on 8.11.89 at about 3 p.m. a break-down occurred in the high frequency welding machine and its various parts were damaged. Therefore the machine became un-serviceable. They filed a claim with the respondent, which appointed Surveyor M/s. B. Dutta to assess the damage. They submitted a report dated 7.1.90 wherein it was stated that the complainant made a mis-representation and concealment of the facts and therefore they were not entitled to any amount on account of damages suffered by them. At the representation of the complainant the respondent appointed second surveyor namely Mr. K.P. Sen. He submitted his report dated 2.4.91 in which he assessed the loss of the complainant at Rs. 1,94,057/-. However, inspite of the report of the surveyor the respondent repudiated the claim of the complainant. Consequently they filed a claim for recovery of Rs. 1,94,057/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. on the said amount from 8.11.89 till the date of payment and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation.
The complaint was contested by the respondent which inter alia pleaded that in the proposal form the complainant made a mis-representation regarding the damages to the machinery in the previous years. Consequently the policy of insurance stood vitiated and the complainant was not entitled to any amount on account of loss suffered by them.
THE only question that arises for determination is whether any mis-representation was made by the complainant at the time of taking out the policy, if so its effect. THEre is no disputes about the facts. THE complainant handed over the proposal form to the respondent in which in question 5(a) a query has been put to the insured, whether machinery sustained damage from break down or other cause during last three years. THE repl y given by the complainant was ''No''. THEreafter the respondent on the basis of the said proposal form issued a cover note dated 18.8.89, in which it was stated that the proposal form was being accepted subject to verification of the facts mentioned therein. The respondent then appointed an Engineer-cum-Surveyor to verify the facts given in the proposal form after inspection of the machinery. In his report dated 25.8.89 the Engineer stated in column of remarks that the complainant had been getting the machinery insured from the Oriental Insurance Company for the last four years but they did not have any bad experience except some losses in welding generator. Inspite of that report the respondent did not repudiate the Insurance Policy. The respondent in view of the aforesaid report cannot now be allowed to say that the welding machine had suffered a loss earlier which was not brought to their notice.
MR. K.P. Sen was appointed as a surveyor by the respondent at the representation of the complainant. He reported that the complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 1,94,057/-. In view of the said report, it cannot be said that the complainant has not suffered any loss. The complainant also accepted the aforesaid assessment. The learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the fact that the complainant accepted the amount of compensation has not been mentioned by Mr. K.P. Sen. If the same has not been mentioned by the surveyor in his report, in our view, it does not make any difference. It is a matter between the respondent and the surveyor. In case they are not satisfied with the conduct of the surveyor, they should take an appropriate action against him. The fact has not been concealed by the complainant and they have mentioned it in the complaint. Consequently we accept the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 1,94,057/-. The complainant has also claimed interest on the aforesaid amount from the date of the incident till the date of payment. It is common knowledge that it takes sometime to an Insurance Company to take a decision on the claim. In view of the facts of the case, we are not inclined to grant interest to the complainant till the date of the report of the second surveyor. Consequently we grant interest to the complainant from the date of the report of the second surveyor i.e. 2.4.91 @ 16% p.a.
FOR the aforesaid reasons we accept the complaint with costs and direct the respondent to pay the amount of Rs. 1,94,057/- with interest @ 16% p.a. from 2.4.91 till the date of payment within a period of three months. Costs Rs. 1,000/-. Complaint accepted.