AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
For the reasons stated in IA 15944 of 2019, delay in filing of the Appeal is condoned.
The present Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") has been filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint No.341 of 2016.
The brief facts of the case are that there was a natural calamity namely "hudhud" cyclone due to which the plant, building, machineries, electricals and plant controller equipment suffered severe damages which were insured with the Appellant. This damage was immediately reported to the Appellant by the Respondent (Complainant). The Appellant appointed a surveyor for assessing the cause of damage and the loss. The surveyor conducted an intensive inspection of the effected site and submitted its report. There was a serious disagreement regarding the finding of the Surveyor and thereafter another surveyor was appointed by the Appellant.
On the behest of the second surveyor, the damaged perlite was sent to the nominated test house. Even before the test house could submit its report, the second surveyor prepared his report and supported the findings of the first surveyor. The first surveyor submitted its report and assessed the loss at 7,92,695/-. The Complainant did not accept the said money and filed the Complaint before the District Forum.
The Appellant filed their written statement and took the plea that the second surveyor had submitted his report on physical inspection of the site. Certain other objections were also taken by the Appellant like that the perlite as alleged by the Complainant was not damaged since it was found being used for running the factory for five months and that two RC and certain other articles were also not found damaged by the second surveyor.
Parties led their evidences. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the impugned order has been passed.
In the present Appeal, learned Counsel has argued that all the four points raised regarding non-damage of certain articles of the Complainant have not been dealt with by the State Commission and hence, the findings are illegal and need to be set aside.
We have heard the arguments and perused the record.
The Forum below has given its findings on the basis of evidences led by both the parties. Learned Counsel on enquiry has failed to bring to our notice any piece of evidence which can show that the articles, as allegedly claimed to be damaged by the Complainant were actually not damaged. The State Commission has clearly noticed in the impugned order that the Opposite Party has not placed on record copy of the joint spot survey report detailing therein the intricate details of damages caused to plant of the Complainant and not even a single photograph has been shown. Relevant paragraph is reproduced as under:
It is indeed surprising that the OPs have not placed on record any copy of joint spot survey report detailing therein the intricate details of damages caused to plant of the complainants. Even not a single photograph is showed to us in order to drive home their point by the OPs.
The State Commission has also observed that despite several directions to furnish complete set of final surveyor report, the Appellant could not produce the same: -
The Complainant claimed Rs.60,64,662/- as insurance claim. As against this, the Surveyor estimated the loss at Rs.7,92,695/-. However, in absence of copy of the detail calculation sheet showing therein the intricate details of all deductions being suggested by the Surveyor, we are unable to independently verify the correctness of such calculation. In this regard, it may not be out of the place to mention here that although the OP Insurance Company was repeatedly directed to furnish complete set of final survey report, they expressed their inability to provide the same."
It is, therefore, apparent that no evidence has been led by the Appellant in support of the contention raised by them in the written version. The learned Counsel has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The Appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed in limine .