AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C. Viswanath, J
The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in F.A. No. 852/2004 dated 12.08.2009.
In the Complaint case, it was stated that the Petitioner/Complainant got insured its Zinc Bath/Tank and furnace from the Respondents/Opposite Party, vide their cover note No. 752688, valid from 19.12.1994 to 18.12.1995 for Rs.7,50,000/-. The Petitioner paid Rs.14963/- towards premium for the insurance. Respondents assured to indemnify the Petitioner for the damages and losses suffered by the Petitioner. On 16.10.1995, between 4:00 to 5.00 P.M. the tank and furnace started leaking and intimation about the same was given to the Respondents, vide letter No. RSPL/95_96 DATED 17.10.1995, mentioning an estimated loss of Rs.7,50,000/-. The loss was got surveyed by the Respondents. However, the Respondents did not settle the claim amount, despite repeated requests by the Petitioner.The Respondents informed the Petitioner that the claim file had been misplaced and the Petitioner was directed to resubmit duplicate documents. In pursuance of the direction of the Respondents, the Petitioner submitted the duplicate documents on 03.11.1998. Even after the submission of the duplicate documents, the claim was not settled. On 12.02.2000, the Petitioner served a legal notice, but there was no response. Non-settlement of the claim for a period of about 5 years, without giving any valid reason, was itself a deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents. Hence, Complaint was filed by the Petitioner against the Respondents.
The Complaint was contested by the Respondents contending that the said matter was got investigated by Shri R.K. Singla and Shri Surinder Kumar Gupta.The Surveyors reported a loss of Rs.1,94,810/-. However, the alleged loss was due to deterioration/wearing away/wearing out of the insured tank etc. and not on account of any incident.The claim of the Petitioner on account of this loss, was not covered in view of Exception No. 5 of the Insurance Policy. Even otherwise, the Petitioner claimed to suffer a loss of Rs.7,50,000/-, but claimed only Rs.499000/- which showed that the claim was bogus and it was not understood as to why the Petitioner was not claiming the full amount of Rs.7,50,000/- and relinquished the huge part of the claim.The Complaint was, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
The District Forum vide order dated 03.03.2004, partly allowed the Complaint on the ground that the Petitioner had not placed on record any document to show that he suffered more loss than that assessed by the Surveyors appointed by the Insurance Company. The Respondents were directed to pay Rs.1,94,810/-, as assessed by the Surveyors to the Complainant alongwith interest @12% per annum from 17.10.1995 till its payment. There was no order as to costs and compliance of the said order was to be made within a period of two months.
The Petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 12.08.2009, dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioner on the ground that after perusal of the report submitted by the Surveyors and documents placed on record it found that the Petitioner was duly compensated by the District Forum as per the Surveyors report. The District Forum had rightly granted adequate compensation to the Petitioner by passing a well-reasoned order which did not need any interference.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission.
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the Respondents.The Learned Counsels argued their case on the above lines. Also carefully perused the record.
The Petitioner M/s. Rawalwasia Steel Plant Ltd., a limited company, was engaged in the manufacturing of galvanised pipes. As per the Joint Survey Report, the Petitioner had experienced personnel running the plant, maintained regular books of accounts and enjoyed a good financial reputation. The zinc tank/bath and furnace had been insured for machinery break-down risk for Rs.7,50,000/-.The plant was well functioning and suddenly on 16.10.1995 it was noticed that the zinc level in the tank was falling much more than the quantity of zinc required for galvanising the pipes.It was also noticed that the zinc had leaked from the tank into the furnace, which surrounded the zinc tank/bath.The Surveyors reported that the break-down of the zinc bath/tank, seemed to be due to striking of sharp edged pipes with the wall of the zinc tank/bath at very high temperature of about 450OC, which led to cracking of the tank walls.The Surveyors opined that rewelding and repairing of the zinc bath/tank was not possible and it was a case of total loss of the zinc bath/tank.As molten zinc leaked into the furnace, certain parts of the furnace also required rebuilding.The Surveyors assessed the loss and damage in consultation with the insured's representatives and finalised the net loss at Rs.1,94,810/-.
On a careful perusal of the Surveyor's report, I am satisfied that a very systematic and scientific assessment of the loss has been made.The Respondent Insurance Company had not led any cogent evidence for not accepting the Surveyors report and avoiding payment of the claim arrived at by the Surveyors.The Petitioner has also not been able to produce any evidence in support of their claim.
In view of the above, based on the assessment report of the Surveyors, who very well justified their assessment of Rs.1,94, 810/-as the net loss suffered by the Petitioner, I see no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission.Orders of the District Forum are confirmed and the Revision Petition is dismissed.There shall be no order as to costs.