AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K.Jain,J
The petitioner obtained a Marine-cum Erection Policy from the respondent for the period from 21.3.2011 to 20.9.2011. The policy was obtained for
a sum insured of Rs.3 crore. Later on, an additional endorsement was made, thereby enhancing the sum insured to Rs.5 crore and insuring the insured
goods on reinstatement basis. The petitioner purchased goods from Italy and the said goods on arrival in India were carried by road to the place of the
petitioner from Chennai port.
The case of the petitioner is that several parts of the machinery, which it had imported from Italy were found missing at destination. A claim,
therefore, was lodged with the insurer for reimbursement in terms of the insurance policy taken by the petitioner. The claim, however, was closed vide
letter dated 13.3.2012 on the ground that pending documents had not been submitted by the complainant. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached
the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.
The complaint was resisted by the respondent which admitted the insurance policy issued by it. It was stated in the written version filed by the
respondent that a complaint alleging theft of some parts of the electronic panel of an old Granite Polishing Machine during transportation was received
but the relevant documents were not made available by the complainant. A surveyor was appointed to assess the loss to the complainant which
assessed the gross loss at Rs.1584629/-. He applied depreciation @ 50% on the aforesaid amount thereby arriving at the figure of Rs.792314.50.
Even the aforesaid amount was not paid to the complainant.
The District Forum partly allowed the consumer complaint. Being aggrieved, both the parties preferred separate appeals before the concerned State
Commission which allowed the claim to the extent of Rs.855814.50. Though the aforesaid amount has been received by the petitioner it is not satisfied
with the aforesaid amount and is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
It is not in dispute that the goods alleged to have been stolen were covered under the insurance policy taken by the petitioner/complainant. It is also
not in dispute that in terms of the additional endorsement made by the insurer, the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement on Reinstatement Basis. In
terms of Handbook on Property Insurance issued by IRDA, in the Reinstatement Value Method, the insurance company has to pay the cost of
replacement subject to ceiling of the sum insured. Under this method, no depreciation is levied. One of the conditions is that the damaged asset should
be repaired/replaced in order to get the claim. This method is allowed only for fixed assets and not for other assets like stock and stock in process.
Since Granite Polishing Machine is a fixed asset obviously, Reinstatement Value Method would be applicable to its parts, meaning thereby that the
cost of replacement has to be paid by the insurer subject to ceiling of the sum insured and no further depreciation is to be levied on the actual cost of
replacement.
No evidence has been led by the petitioner/complainant to prove the cost at which it had replaced the stolen/missing parts of the Granite Polishing
Machine. Since admittedly the machine purchased by the petitioner/complainant was an old machine, the stolen parts of the machine should also be old
parts if available, and not new parts. Therefore, the petitioner/complainant is required to replace them by old parts subject of course to the availability
of the old parts in the market.
The learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner submits that they have already replaced the missing/stolen parts. If this is so, the
petitioner/complainant should lead evidence to prove the actual cost at which the parts were replaced. In case the parts purchased by the
petitioner/complainant were old parts, the petitioner/complainant would be entitled to the replacement of the cost at which the same were purchased
subject to verification of the said cost by the surveyor of the insurer. If, however, the parts which the petitioner/complainant purchased in order to
replace the missing/stolen parts with new parts, it will have to satisfy the surveyor that old parts were not available in the market and that is why it had
to purchase new parts.
On the other hand, if despite availability of old parts in the market, new parts were purchased by the complainant, the insurer will be entitled to apply
the appropriate depreciation so as to reimburse only the cost of the old parts to the complainant. In case old parts were purchased, the purchase value
should be verified by the surveyor. In case new parts were purchased, the surveyor shall verify from the market as to whether old parts were
available or not. If he finds that old parts were not available, the actual cost incurred by the complainant would be paid to it. If, however, despite
availability of old parts in the market, new parts were purchased, the surveyor would apply appropriate depreciation so as to allow the value of the old
parts to the complainant.
The learned counsel for the respondent also submits that having accepted the amount awarded by the State Commission, the petitioner is precluded
from making further claim by way of a revision petition before this Commission. I, however, find no merit in the contention. A judicial order cannot
prejudice any person merely because a payment in terms of the said order has been accepted. The said acceptance of the payment, in my opinion,
does not estopp the petitioner from challenging the order passed by the State Commission on merits.
The petitioner is directed to provide requisite documents in terms of this order to the insurer within four weeks from today. Thereafter, the insurer
will require the surveyor to assess the loss to the complainant in terms of this order within twelve weeks thereafter. The revision petition stands
disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.