THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD BRANCH OFFICE CIVIL SADAR BAZAR MUZAFFAR NAGAR LINES Vs. M/S AKASH STEEL AND ALLOYS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein were opposite parties 1 and 2, respectively, before the District Forum and the respondents are the complainants. The complainants are engaged in the work of making alloys steel casting. They had taken an insurance policy for the period from 16.01.1989 to 15.01.1990 from the opposite parties. Under the policy, the machines of the complainants were insured for Rs. 32 lakh and the annual premium payable was Rs.44,197/-. In the insurance policy, a copy of which is placed on record, all risks related to machines were insured. During the policy period, the incident of breakdown of the machinery took place on 29.11.1989 thereby causing loss to the complainants. This loss was intimated by the complainants to the opposite parties, upon which the opposite parties got the loss assessed through a Surveyor. The Surveyor went to the spot of accident and found that the damage had taken place and was covered under the insurance policy. The complainants got the damage machine repaired on which they spent an amount of Rs.32,105/-. All the details of expenditure were given by the complainants to the opposite parties while lodging their claim with the opposite parties. When there was no response despite requests and reminders, the complainants filed a complaint with the District Forum and in which they demanded the sum of Rs.32,105/- with @25% interest.

(2.) On being noticed, the opposite parties filed a reply in which they accepted the insurance and also accepted the appointment of Surveyor but submitted that on the basis of Surveyor s report, the claim of the complainants had finally been disposed of according to the terms of the policy and hence the complaint is not admissible and the amount demanded is exaggerated. It was also submitted that the opposite parties were always ready to pay the correct and reasonable claim and they have already paid the claim due and admissible to the complainants. The opposite parties also denied any negligence or deficiency in service or delay on their part in the disposal of the claim. Finally, it was contended by the opposite parties that the dispute in question was required to be settled through an arbitration and hence cannot be decided by the District Forum.

(3.) After hearing the parties and assessing the evidence produced by them before it, the District Forum rejected the plea of the opposite parties regarding its jurisdiction to deal with the matter. It also did not find force in the submission of the opposite parties that the claim had already been decided because no such information was either given to the complainants or any letter in this regard was placed on record by the opposite parties before the District Forum. In fact, even the Surveyor s report on the basis of which the opposite parties alleged to have decided the claim had also not been placed on record. As regards the allegation of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the District Forum vide its order dated 18.03.1993 accepted the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs.32,105/- with interest @12% per annum from 29.11.1989 till the date of payment. The District Forum has recorded the following reasons in support of its decision:-