AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M /s Padma Industries, the complainant is running a small scale industry. During the subsistence of the insurance policy issued by the IFFCO -Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. fire engulfed the factory on 23.07.2003 and the whole machinery was burnt. The complainant lodged a complaint with the insurance company with the request that they suffered a loss to the tune of more than Rs. 8,00,000/ -. The surveyor came to the conclusion that the complainant has suffered a loss in the sum of Rs. 1,29,500/ - which already stands paid to the financial corporation as directed by the complainant.
THE opposite parties contended that the loss is highly imaginary and is exorbitant.
THE District Forum awarded a sum of Rs.7,00,000/ - minus Rs.1,29,500/ -, which already stood paid. The appeal was preferred by the Insurance Company before the State Commission. The State Commission placed reliance on Surveyor''s report and limited the liability of the Insurance Company to Rs.1,29,500/ -. It also held that the District Forum committed an error by passing an order against OP -3 jointly and severally. I have heard both the counsel. The counsel for the petitioner/ complainant has invited my attention towards the report of the surveyor. Its relevant portion runs as under:
"The technical engineers, of M/s Auro machines Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad, visited and inspected the Machineries situated in the M/s Padma Industries, Gulbarga, stated in their inspection report that the electrical and electronic switches panels and wirings were completely burnt due to fire, further stated that the machines can be repairable but has not totally recommended for replacement. Since not interesting to carry out the repairs.
In view of the above the insured furnished an estimation for replacement cost of the new machine and also 2 different quotations from Hyderabad and Pune towards repairs of the machinery worth of Rs. 3.5 Lakhs for both machineries.
Since both the estimates are found in the similar fashion. In the meantime I have contacted, M/s pearl Packing, Coimbatore. Based on the photographs, the technical reps of the said firm has furnished the estimate of Rs. 54,700.00 towards repairs and replacement of damaged parts. It is also understood, that, the cost of the new Machinery of identical make and model will cost Rs. 1.25 to 1.5 Lakhs."
THE counsel for the petitioner contended that the report of the surveyor is based only on the photographs and therefore, it should be rejected.
THE petitioner has filed no rebuttal evidence. No private surveyor was appointed to rebut report of the surveyor. It is clear that the machinery is repairable. The report of the surveyor is to prevail in view of the Supreme Court Authority reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. and Ors., 2000 10 SCC 19]. This commission also took a similar view in the case D. N. Badoni Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2012 1 CPJ 272 ].
KEEPING in view the facts and circumstances, I am inclined to enhance the repair charges from 1,29,500/ - to Rs. 1,50,000/ -. Out of this, Rs. 1,29,500/ - has already been paid. The rest of the amount in the sum of Rs. 20,500/ - be paid to the petitioner within a period of 45 days from today otherwise, it will carry interest @ 9 % per annum, till its realization. As agreed, the amount be paid to Karnatka State Financial Corporation.
THE revision petition stands disposed of.