NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. FEBAMA AGENCIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two First Appeals (F.A. Nos. 747/2006 and 748/2006) have been filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellant') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in Complaint Nos. 34/2000 and 35/2000 decided in favour of M/s. Lejoy Enterprises and M/s. Febama Agencies, original complainants before the State Commission and Respondents herein. Since the two appeals have arisen from the same order of the State Commission, it is decided to dispose of these appeals by a common order by taking the facts from F.A. No. 747/2006.

(2.) On 29.11.1999 at about 2.00 a.m., a fire broke out in the godown of the Respondent where various perishable edible items were stored. The Fire Brigade was notified which categorized it as a major fire and which took over one hour to extinguish. The report filed by the Fire Department and Emergency Services stated that the entire stock of cheese, butter, shrikhand, gulab jamun etc. and various other items were damaged/destroyed in the fire. The Panchnama conducted by the Police also confirmed that the godown consisting of 5 rooms along with all the items stored therein were totally burnt as also the Refrigerator and various other materials except for some Parle boxes. The damage was estimated to the extent of about Rs. 15 lakh. The husband of the Respondent also received extensive burn injuries while trying to extinguish the fire and had to be hospitalized. The Syndicate Bank as also the Appellant/Insurance Company were informed about the fire and the Appellant/Insurance Company deputed one M.N. Khandeparkar to prepare a preliminary fire survey report which also confirmed the loss. Thereafter, the Respondent appointed one Sunil Vora as Surveyor who without properly inspecting the site and without giving an opportunity to hear the Respondent's spouse who had been hospitalized and also without taking into account the important documentary evidence which included the report from the Fire Department and the Panchnama as also documents pertaining to inventories/stocks authenticated by Syndicate Bank, wrongly concluded that the loss was only Rs. 60,266. Later the Surveyor as well as the Appellant/Insurance Company contacted the Respondent as also the Manager of Syndicate Bank agreeing to settle the claim for Rs. 1,60,000 which was declined since the total value of the goods gutted in the fire was Rs. 2,88,000. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the Appellant/Insurance Company, Respondent filed a complaint before the State Commission requesting that Appellant/Insurance Company be directed to settle the claim of Respondent for Rs. 2,88,000 as also damages of Rs. 2,14,000 for delay in settlement of the claim leading to mental agony and anxiety with interest @ 18% per annum.

(3.) Appellant/Insurance Company on being served contested the allegations made by Respondent and contended that the Surveyor appointed by it had submitted a detailed survey and loss assessment report giving credible reasons for concluding that: the loss caused as a result of the fire was only Rs. 70,266 and after setting off Rs. 10,000 as per policy conditions, the net loss worked out to Rs. 60,266. Appellant denied that any offer to settle the claim at Rs. 1,60,000 had been made either to the Respondent or to Syndicate Bank with whom the stocks were hypothecated. The extent of the damage to the stocks had been videotaped and a detailed investigation was carried out in which the discrepancies in the statement of stocks vis-a-vis the actual damaged stocks had been highlighted. It was also contended that the documents including Profit and Loss Account (Exhibits 'C and 'D') were fabricated documents on which no reliance could be placed.