NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. INTERWEAVE FASHIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order dtd. 17/9/2012 in First Appeal no. 695 of 2009 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, the 'State Commission') partly allowing the appeal against order dtd. 15/5/2009 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi (in short, the 'District Forum') in consumer complaint no. 1133/2006. This order will also dispose of RP no.366 of 2013 a cross revision petition filed by the respondent challenging the same order.

(2.) The relevant facts of the case according to the petitioner are that respondent took a standard fire and special peril policy of Rs.22.00 lakhs for Plant and Machinery and accessories for Rs.10.00 Lakhs and Stocks for Rs.60.00 lakhs for premises at B-294, Okhla Industrial area, Phase-1 New Delhi - 110020 for the period from 16/5/2005 to 15/5/2006. A fire took place at insured premises at about 4:30 pm on 23/9/2005 which caused damage to the stocks. The respondent informed about the fire to the Manager, Punjab National Bank, International Bank Branch (IBB), DCM Building, 16th Barakhamba Road, New Delhi vide letter dtd. 24/9/2005. The Bank, on receiving the said letter, intimated the fire incident to the insurance company vide letter dtd. 26/9/2005. On receiving the information from the bank, the petitioner appointed M/s Atul Kapur and Co., as surveyor to survey and assess the loss. On 27/9/2005 police locked the premises, therefore, the inspection could not be carried out. The surveyor requested the respondent on 27/9/2005 to submit various documents in order to assess the claim. As the respondent did not submit the required documents within 7 days to the surveyor, it was presumed that respondent was not interested in pursuing the claim and same should be treated as withdrawn. The surveyor submitted his survey report dtd. 5/6/2006 to the petitioner assessing the adjusted loss of stock at Rs.2,09,775.00 and building at Rs.22,975.00, aggregating to a sum of Rs.2,30,75.00 from which Rs.10,000.00 was deducted towards the excess clause. Therefore, a net assessment of Rs.2,22,75.00 was arrived at by the surveyor. Based on provisional trading account till date of loss and after reducing the stocks lying outside the affected location, the value of stock at risk was calculated by the surveyor to be Rs.127.17 lacs against the sum insured of Rs.60.00 lakhs. Accordingly, the insurance company paid amount of Rs.2,20,329.00 which was accepted by the bank in full satisfaction and discharge of the claim upon the petitioner. The respondent alleged that there is deficiency in service on part of the petitioner and therefore, filed a complaint against the petitioner seeking compensation of Rs.14,20,652.00 towards residual amount of loss to the respondent with interest @ 18%.

(3.) The contentions of the petitioner are that the claim had been settled with the insured's banker, Punjab National Bank, in full and final satisfaction by paying a of a sum Rs.2,20,399.00. The receipt of such payment was incomplete discharge of the petitioner's claim and was binding on the respondent. The discharge voucher was issued by the banker to the respondent is considered to be in complete discharge of the petitioner. Therefore, it is contended that there is no deficiency in service on part of the petitioner.