AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member
The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the Complainant”) against the order dated 31.01.2011 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (for short “the State Commission”) in Complaint No.59 of 1997 whereby although their Complaint was allowed but compensation of amount of ₹10,390/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 16.04.1996 till realization was awarded.
The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant is running a factory and had several machines installed therein. The Complainant had insured their machines buying several policies from the Respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the Insurance Company”). One of their machines, during the validity of the insurance policy, had broken down. The piston rod of 3.15 Ton Hammer got accidentally damaged/broken on 18.12.1992 and since it was insured with the Insurance Company, a claim of ₹10,20,938/- was presented by the Complainant to the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company after a long delay offered them a sum of ₹10,390/- vide its letter dated 18.07.1996. The Insurance Company had appointed a surveyor, namely, Mr. K. G. Chablani who had submitted his report dated 04.02.1996. Based on his report, the said amount against the loss was offered to the Complainant. The Complainant did not accept the said amount and filed the Complaint alleging that in fact they had suffered a loss of ₹10,20,938/- and that the Insurance Company by not giving them proper compensation towards loss suffered by them, has committed gross deficiency in providing service. The Complainant also claimed compensation etc.
The claim was contested by the Insurance Company. It is submitted that the broken rod was replaced by another one and the supplier had delivered extra rod at the time of delivery of original machine. It is submitted that the Insurance Company after deducting depreciation, salvage, under insurance etc. had reached to the conclusion that net payable amount was ₹10,390/-. It is further contended that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company.
I have heard the arguments and perused the relevant record.
It is an admitted fact that nowhere the Complainant has denied the contention and also the noting recorded by the surveyor in his report dated 04.02.1996 that the spare rod had been provided to them by the supplier at the time when they had purchased the machine. The surveyor has noted in his report that the Complainant had not cooperated with them and had not furnished the information, the documents required by them and the spare rod which was provided to them by the supplier at the time of the purchase of the machine which was in the year 1992. The Complainant has failed to supply the spare rod/invoices of the said rod to the Insurance Company so that correct value of the loss could have been done. Since the Complainant had already got spare piston rod and had not supplied the requested documents, the claim of the Complainant for the value of the new rod, has rightly been rejected by the State Commission in its impugned order. The State Commission has rightly relied upon the surveyor report of the Insurance Company since the said surveyor has taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and has also noted that the Complainant already had a spare rod and had not cooperated and did not provide the necessary information asked for by them. I found no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order. The Appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed.