SUNIL GAUTAM Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/Insurance Company in not settling the claim of the complainant under an insurance policy and rather repudiating the same on unjustifiable grounds, the complainants, who are the partners of M/s. Gautam Ice and Cold Storage, Sadabad Road, Raya, Distt. Mathura have filed this complaint seeking an order on the opposite party/Insurance Company to settle the claim of the complainant by paying a sum of Rs. 29,19,000 along with interest @ 18% per annum besides a compensation of Rs. 20 lacs and the cost of litigation.

(2.) The facts of the case are in narrow compass. The complainant is running an Ice and Cold Storage and used to store the stocks of potatoes belonging to various parties/growers in their cold storage. They had taken three policies from the opposite party to cover their risk against the building, etc., in the sum of Rs.60 lacs, machinery breakdown in the sum of Rs.20,66,000 and a damage of stockpolicy covering the risk of deterioration of stocks of potatoes of 50,000 bags @ Rs. 100 per bag in the sum of Rs.50 lacs by paying the requisite premium on those policies. As the luck would have it, during the currency of the said insurance policies, there was break down of the machinery of the cold storage on 15.5.1999 for which a claim was lodged by the complainant under the machinery breakdown policy, which was settled and paid by the Insurance Company to the satisfaction of the complainant. The breakdown of the machinery was rectified. However, in late September, 1999, at the time of the unloading of the potatoes stocks from the cold storage, the complainants noticed that a large portion of stock of potatoes had been damaged on account of germination of potatoes which they presumed was on account of the breakdown of the machinery in May, 1999. The complainant intimated to the Insurance Company about the damage to the stocks of potatoes but no prompt action was taken by the opposite party to get the loss assessed. It was after a communication dated 2.11.1999 issued by the complainant that the opposite party/Insurance Company appointed M/s. Kaypsens, Surveyors and Loss Assessors, New Delhi whose representative Shri Hemant Jain visited the site of the cold storage on 6.11.1999 for a general inspection but he returned without assessing the loss holding out assurance that senior officers will look into the matter. According to the complainant, as many as 29,19,000 bags of potatoes had deteriorated/damaged and computing the price of the damaged @ Rs. 100 per bag the complainant lodged a claim of Rs. 29,19,000. It would appear that after about one year of the peril, the Surveyors M/s. Kaypsens vide their report dated 13.10.2000 assessed the net loss towards the damage of stocks of potatoes at Rs. 22,66,355 but after deducting certain sums towards underinsurance and excess of policy, the net adjusted loss was quantified at Rs. 13,01,030. Even that amount was not paid by the opposite party/Insurance Company and the Insurance Company lastly vide their letter dated 8.6.2001, repudiated the claim of the complainant all together giving out the following reasons. We would like to extract the said letter:

(3.) On being noticed, the Insurance Company filed its written version raising preliminary objections about the maintainability of the present complaint and setting out various reasons why 'no claim' is payable to the complainant towards the loss due to damage to the stock of potatoes under the insurance policy in question. The repudiation of the insurance claim is sought to be justified on the same grounds on which it had already repudiated the claim besides giving detailed reasons and circumstances in support of the said grounds. The issuance of the policy "Deterioration of Stocks (Potatoes) and stock of potatoes of the complainant having been damaged is not seriously disputed. It is also not disputed that the Surveyor had assessed the net adjusted loss at Rs. 13,01,030 after making statutory deductions as per the terms of the policy. It is however denied that the opposite party has committed any deficiency in service by repudiating the claim of the complainant and is liable to pay any amount much less the amount claimed by the complainant in the complaint.