VENKATESWARA SYNDICATE Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Original Petition No. 135 of 2001 dated 19th day of January, 2003.

(2.) The brief facts are as under : The appellant is a registered partnership firm. Their line of activity is trading in cotton. For the purpose of their business, they had taken M/s. Jai Bharat Traders Cotton Ginning Mill on lease. The claim of the appellant is that an accidental fire took place in the godown of M/s. Jai Bharat Traders, leased by the appellant firm, where its cotton stocks were stored and insured at about 2.10 a.m. in the morning hours of 24.8.1999 and according to the appellant the estimated loss was of Rs. 1.90 crores. The cotton stocks in question were covered by seven insurance policies issued by respondent - Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as insurer for a total sum of Rs. 1.98 crores during the period when the fire accident took place. The appellant made a claim of Rs. 1.90 crores towards loss of stock due to accidental fire in its business premises, with the insurer. Pursuant to the claim so made, the insurance company appointed one Sri K. Siva Prasad, a licensed surveyor for preliminary investigation and for submitting a preliminary report, about the cause of fire and the probable loss said to have been suffered by the insured. The surveyor having examined the place of fire accident gave preliminary report dated 09.09.1999 to the insurance company estimating the loss of stock at Rs. 1,73,92,310/-, however, had noticed in his report that the number of bales and borahs lying in the Godown and the actual quantity of lint damaged by fire has to be got confirmed from the accounts of the insured and also by physical verification of bale hoops. The insurer after receipt of the preliminary report of Sri K. Siva Prasad, had appointed Joint Surveyors M/s. Mehta and Padamsey and Kaypens, in terms of Section 64 UM(2) of the Insurance Act to give a joint report. They conducted a joint survey and in that, had estimated the loss of stock insured at Rs. 1,67,80,925/- and gave a report to that effect to the insurer. The insurer being of the view that the report is perfunctory, had appointed yet another Surveyor viz. Dinesh Gopal and Co. who, in turn appointed one Mr. Panchal, former DIG (Fire) CISF and Fire Adviser to the Government of India to investigate and submit a report, who in turn after investigation and survey submitted his report dated 07.05.2000, confirming the quantification made by the Joint Surveyor. Since the insurer was not satisfied with the aforesaid report also, appointed R. Srinivasan and Co., Chartered Accountant to give a fresh report by estimating the loss of stock insured due to accidental fire incident. After inspection of the godown and verifying the books of accounts, estimated the loss of stock at Rs. 1,05,00,817/-. The insurance company had placed the aforesaid report before the Joint Surveyor viz. M/s. Mehta and Padamsey and Kaypsens for their opinion. The joint surveyors in their clarificatory report dated 06.01.2001, did not agree with the findings of the chartered accountant, on the ground that the chartered accountant had based his report only after verifying the books of accounts for the period 01.10.1998 to 31.03.1999 and not till the date of fire accident.

(3.) Since there was inordinate delay in settling the lawful claim under the fire insurance policy, the appellant preferred original complaint before the National Consumer Forum against the insurer, inter alia, alleging that there was deficiency in service and, therefore, they are entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,67,80,925/- being the value of loss assessed by the Joint Surveyors and, therefore, sought a direction to the insurer for payment of the aforesaid amount with interest at 18% from the date of fire accident till its realization and for payment of a sum of Rs. 6,91,155/- being the value of the salvage as assessed by the surveyors and also to award damages in causing unnecessary and unwarranted delay in settling the claim under the insurance policy.