FOOJA GYANCHANDRA JOSHI Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this complaint, the allegations are made against M/s. United INdia INsurance Co., (hereinafter referred to as "INsurance Company"), in rendering deficient service. Shortly stated, the facts are that the complainant is a Proprietor of the firm, styled as M/s. Suren Enterprises. The firm deals in export of ready-made Garments. The complainant obtained an INsurance Policy, bearing No. 120100/11/16/13/20/04/11925/90, dated 23rd March 1988. On 20th September 1970, there was a fire at the place where the stock of the complainant was kept. The stock was burnt in fire. The complainant lodged the claim with opposite party. The incident of fire was reported to the Police on 24-09-1990. Along with First INformation Report (F.I.R.), a list of goods destroyed in fire, along with machinery, furniture, fixtures and electrical appliances and accessories was given. The Police had conducted an on-the-spot Panchnama on 21-09-1990. According to the complainant, the goods worth Rs. 1 lac were hypothecated with Punjab National Bank, at Santacruz (West) Branch. It is made clear that the hypothecation was pertaining to the Export order of Shorts of 2000 (two thousand) dozens. Against this hypothecation, packing credit of Rs. 1,00,000/- was obtained. It is also alleged that these goods were insured with the opposite party, after payment of due premium. According to the complainant, the Survey was conducted by the opposite party. The Bankers also lodged the claim with the INsurance Co. The complainant, therefore, alleged that, despite the claim lodged by herself and by the Bankers, the opposite party delayed the settlement of the claim. Ultimately, the opposite party, nearly after 1� years, sent a voucher to the complainant, settling her claim for Rs. 69,205/- as against the claim of Rs. 3,95,727/-. The complainant protested the settlement of her claim for a meagre amount and requested to pay full amount of her claim for Rs. 3,95,727/-. The complainant, therefore, filed this complaint, claiming a total amount of Rs. 9,18,613.25, inclusive of interest, loss of business and legal charges.

(2.) THE opposite party filed written version, dated 27th January 1993, denying the claim of the complainant. According to the opposite party, although the Insurance Policy was for Rs. 4,00,000/-, actual goods lost in fire were of the lesser amount. It is also stated by the opposite party that the delay has been caused due to the report of the Surveyor, which was received on 17th December 1991. THE opposite party also submitted that the discharge voucher for Rs. 69,205/- was sent to the complainant towards the amount of loss assessed by the Surveyor. In short, the case of the opposite party is that whatever loss has been assessed by the Surveyor was only payable to the complainant.

(3.) IT is found that the opposite party mechanically relied on the belated report of the Surveyor, which was received after 14 months, after the date of fire. The opposite party mechanically accepted that report for arriving at the figure of the loss of Rs. 69,205/-. IT is important to note that despite our direction, the opposite party did not place on record the Survey Report, nor filed the affidavit of the Surveyor to justify the reduction of the complainants claim. IT is faintly suggested by the opposite party that the Surveyor reduced the claim on the ground that the goods manufactured were lying in the premises of the insured for a long time and could not be sold in the local market. The explanation for reducing the complainants claim appears to be totally baseless. There cannot be also depreciation, so far as the Garments are concerned. According to the complainant, the Garments destroyed in fire were of export quality and could be sold even at the higher price in the local market. According to the complainant, there is no question of depreciation on the textile goods, since they could fetch good price in the local market, being designed as "Export Quality". Thus, we find that the reasons for reducing the complainants claim from Rs. 3,95,727/- to merely Rs. 69,205/- is not based on any reasonable and convincing grounds. The Surveyor seems to have assumed that the samples were utilised and, therefore, wrongly calculated 1/3rd value of the total stock destroyed in fire. There is no support to this assumption made by the Surveyor. Therefore, in our view, the reduction in value of the insured goods is not justified in this case. Moreover, we find that the Surveyor is not an expert in Textile Garments.