NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. PUNJAB FIBRES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 20.04.2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (in short, 'the State Commission') in Consumer Complaint No. 88 of 2006 Punjab Fibres Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. by which, while allowing complaint, OP was directed to pay balance of Rs.15,76,844/- with 6% p.a. interest from 25.4.2006 till payment and Rs.20,000/- were allowed as cost.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent obtained insurance policy for its factory buildings, plant & machinery and stocks from OP/petitioner for a period commencing from 2.12.2003 to 1.12.2004 under cover note No.29342 for a sum of Rs.10.25 crores. On 21.10.2004, fire broke out in the factory at 3.15 p.m. and complainant's insured premises suffered heavy loss. Intimation was given immediately to fire brigade department and police and intimation was also given to OP. On the same day, OP appointed M/s. S. Soni & Co. as surveyors, who vised factory premises on 21.10.2004 and 22.10.2004 and requested complainant to furnish some information, which was furnished. Complainant lodged claim for Rs.34,05,698/- vide letter dated 25.1.2005. It was further submitted that in the original claim estimated value of repairs of Rotary Filters was mentioned as Rs.6,84,295/-, but actually Rs.3,19,869/- were incurred in repairs; hence, claim reduced to Rs.30,41,272/-. On 9.9.2005, complainant received letter from surveyor in which it was mentioned that Rotary Filters were not found damaged in the survey and surveyor rejected claim regarding Rotary Filters without any basis. It was further submitted that rate of construction mentioned by the surveyor in the survey report was very high and was done with an objective of reducing claim substantially and ultimately, OP finalised claim for a sum of Rs. 6,64,300/- in full and final settlement of the claim. On receipt of cheque of aforesaid amount dated 31.3.2006 by letter dated 25.4.2006, complainant immediately lodged his protest vide letter dated 15.5.2006 and requested OP to re-calculate the loss on the basis of valuation report submitted by complainant vide letter dated 20.3.2006. OP did not consider complainant's request. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before State Commission. OP resisted complaint and admitted issuance of policy, but submitted that policy was subject to reinstatement clause. It was further submitted that surveyor appointed by OP assessed claim and accordingly full and final payment was made to the complainant. OP denied that it had suggested complainant to get the value assessed from the Government approved valuer M/s. Accurate Surveyor and Valuer. It was further submitted that claim regarding Rotary Filters was duly noticed by surveyor, but it was rejected after consideration on merits by the surveyor. OP denying deficiency, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties allowed complaint as mentioned above against which, this appeal has been filed.

(3.) None appeared for respondent even after service and respondent was proceeded ex-parte