AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudip Ahluwalia, Member
This Appeal has been filed by the Appellants/Complainants against the Respondents/Opposite Parties challenging the impugned Order dated 08.07.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan, in Complaint bearing No. 6 of 2008. Vide such Order, the State Commission had partly allowed the Complaint.
The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant No.1 is a registered partnership Firm having Complainants No. 2 and 3 as its partners. The Complainant No.1 had obtained Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy for insurance of the assets of the Firm including Factory Building, Plant & Machinery & Accessories and Category I Stock situated at A-68-A, Road No.1, Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur, vide Policy No. 330200/11/06/11/00000560 with risk coverage period from 31.12.2006 to 30.12.2007. The Policy was valued at Rs.1,40,00,000/-, comprising of Rs.15 Lacs for factory building, Rs.25 Lacs for Plant & Machinery and Rs.1 Crore for stocks, which was issued by the Opposite Party’s agent after complete analysis and verification of the documents. It was submitted that the Complainant had duly paid the premium of insurance according to the terms and conditions of the Opposite Party and hence, the Opposite Party was liable to compensate the Complainant for the damages caused due to fire.
It was the case of the Complainants that a fire had broken out on the midnight of 30.03.2007 and 31.03.2007 at 12:10 A.M. in their factory which was immediately informed to the Fire Officer, Jaipur Municipal Corporation and then to the Opposite Parties. On 31.03.2007, the Surveyor of the Opposite Parties namely, Shri Vishal Gupta had inspected all the books of accounts and the stock register of the Complainant Firm and thereafter, the DM of the Opposite Party namely, Sh. Mahavir had inspected the whole mill and property/stock. Thereafter, on 02.04.2007, the Surveyor of the Opposite Party namely, Sh. Rajeev Agrawal had inspected the damaged material and issued instructions to the Complainant-Firm for disposal of separated weighed damaged stock. Therefore, the Complainant had disposed off the salvage as per instructions of the Surveyor and had issued complete challans for weight of the disposed off material on 03.04.2007, which was also verified by the Surveyor. It was submitted by the Complainant that its factory had suffered a loss of more than Rs.60,00,000/- and all the details were provided to the Opposite Party as were demanded. It was also contended that photos were also taken by the Insurance Company.
It was further the case of the Complainant that it was entitled to a claim of Rs.61,22,328/- along with other ancillary reliefs. However, the Opposite Party paid only a sum of Rs.9,97,942/-. Consequently, the Complainant had sent a letter dated 18.02.2008 to the Opposite Parties to which a frivolous reply to deny the claim was sent by the Opposite Parties.
Therefore being aggrieved by the acts of the Opposite Party in failing to pay the claim amount and alleging deficiency in services, the Complaint was filed before the Ld. State Commission seeking payment of Rs.61,22,328/- for loss of stock, Plant & Machinery and repair of Building; Rs.2,00,000/- for deficiency in services, Rs.1,00,000 for litigation expenses and Rs.10,00,000/- for business loss along with interest @18% p.a.
The Opposite Parties had appeared before the Ld. State Commission and resisted the Complaint and had denied all the allegations thereby denying deficiency in service on their part. It was contended that the claim had been settled for Rs.9,97,942/-; that a duly licensed Surveyor was deputed and the claim was settled based on his report; that the Opposite Parties were not liable for any additional payment just because the Complainant is unsatisfied with the settlement amount; that the rightful remedy lies in a civil suit or in invoking the Arbitration Clause; that the insured in the Policy is not the Complainant-Firm but ‘Union Bank of India A/c Lakda Dal & Besan Utpadan Kendra, Jaipur’ and therefore, the first charge upon any sum payable viz-a-viz the claim is that of Union Bank of India and the said Bank is a necessary and proper party to the case who has not been arraigned; that the Complainants No. 2 and 3 had violated the express instruction of the Surveyor, Sh. Rajeev K. Agarwal to destroy the salvage only after its weighment in the presence of the Surveyor and on obtaining instructions from the Insurer; that the Complainant Firm, in order to exaggerate the quantity of stock affected by fire, unilaterally destroyed the salvage and concocted certain weighment slips to reflect as if the salvage weighed 42,760 Kgm; that the production and sales of the Complainant/Firm were much higher but were deliberately shown on the lesser side to avoid tax liability due to which the Firm was forced to show higher quantity of stock in its books; that the premises of the Complainant firm were raided by the Income Tax Department in August, 2007 wherein unaccountable sales of crores of rupees were found; that the Complainant/Firm had not provided the documents for more than 3 months; that the loss has been correctly assessed by the Surveyor, Sh. Rajeev K. Agrawal which was supported with supplementary reports of Er. R.C. Bindal and Regd. valuer Arun Kumar Patni vis-a-vis the loss relating to Plant & Machinery and Factory Building respectively; that the Surveyor had rightly based his assessment on the salvage of 10,100 Kgm weighed in his presence and added 50% for variables; that the Opposite Parties had offered a sum of Rs.10,44,910/- towards loss to the Complainant firm as was assessed by the Surveyor, subject to deduction of Rs.46,968/- towards reinstatement premium in terms of condition No.15 of the Policy. Thus a sum of Rs.9,97,942 was paid to the Complainant/Firm. Therefore, the Opposite Parties had prayed for dismissal of the Complaint with exemplary costs.
The Ld. State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 08.07.2016 had observed that loss of stock has to be assessed on the basis of remnants and salvage and Rajeev Agarwal had assessed the salvage at 10,100 Kgs and had further added 50% variables but he had not taken into account the salvage of 42,760 Kg which was allegedly disposed off without permission of the surveyor on the grounds that there is discrepancy in the weighing slips and the officials at waste depot of Nagar Nigam had not confirmed the disposal. It was observed by the Ld. State Commission that the Surveyor should have disallowed the suspicious slips while allowing the rest of the claim. Further, the contention that the officials of Nagar Nigam had not confirmed the disposal was not accepted for want of evidence. Therefore, the Ld. State Commission had partly allowed Complaint and held inter alia:
“…17. In view of the above discussion we partially allow the complaint and order that after deducting the weight of five suspicious weighing slips from the total disposal of 42760 kgs. The company shall pay to the complainant the value of stock at rates prevailing at the time of loss, along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint…”
Aggrieved by the above Order, the present Appeal has been filed by Appellants/Complainants against the Respondents/Opposite Parties before this Commission and contended that the impugned Order is illegal with regard to rejection of a part of the claim.
Heard the Ld. Counsel for Appellants and Respondents. Perused the material available on record.
As has been seen, the Ld. State Commission essentially allowed the claim of the Complainant as made in its complaint, but had deducted the weight of salvage covered under five specific suspicious weighing slips. It is to be noted that no written synopsis/arguments have been filed on behalf of the Appellants in spite of the direction to that effect passed as far back as on 24.11.2021.
This Commission has perused the material on record and finds that there was actually an element of impossibility in the matter of alleged loading and disposal of the destroyed salvage in those slips. The details thereof had been specified by the Surveyor in his report, which are set out as below –
“1. L. Time 15:34 – Slip Issued No. 1766 SR No. 4 dated 03.04.07
L. Time 15:32 – Slip Issued No. 1761 SR No. 1 dated 03.04.07
Vehicle is same in both the slip i.e. RJ 14 2G 7906
How it is possible.
L. Time 16:04 – Slip Issued No. 1765 SR No. 3 dated 03.04.07
L. Time 15:31 - Slip Issued No. 1766 SR No. 4 dated 03.04.07
How it is possible, please see the above Serial No.
L. Time 12.00 – Slip Issued No. 1818 dated 04.04.07 SR No. 12
T.W. Time 12.02 – Slip Issued No. 1839 dated 04.04.07 SR No. 14
Vehicle is same in both the slip i.e. RJ 14 1G 9167
How it is possible.
Kanta Slip No. 1761 dated 03.04.07 SR No. 1
Slip No. 1762 dated 03.04.07 SR No. 2
Not entered in Kanta Register we had verified on 08.04.07.
Kanta Slip No. 1839 dated 04.04.07 SR No. 4
Quantity as per slip is 3120 Kg
Quantity as per Kanta Manual Register 3020 Kg
How it is possible.
Note:- L- Time-Denotes Loaded Vehicle time’
T.W. Time – Denote Tare Wt. Vehicle Time.”
Perusal of the same goes to show that there was a gap of just 1-2 minutes in respect of slip No. 1761 & 1766 dated 3.4.2007 and number of the vehicle used for loading and consigning the salvage was identical, which is virtually not possible. No further explanation for rest of the slips need be repeated, since the discrepancies therein are also palpable. The Ld. State Commission was, therefore, perfectly justified in excluding the weightage of the salvage covered under these specific slips from the claim of the Appellants/Insured.
No grounds are therefore made out to interfere with well-reasoned Order of the Ld. State Commission. Dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.