ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. NITA INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 10.07.2008 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 235 of 2006, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited preferred this Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"). By its impugned order dated 10.07.2008, the State Commission has concurred with the finding of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tis Hazari, Delhi (for short the 'District Forum') in CC No. 461 of 2005, by which order, the District Forum allowed the Complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay the claim amount of Rs. 5,11,315/- with compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and costs of Rs. 5,000/-.

(2.) The brief facts as stated in the Complaint are: that the Complainant, a Sole Proprietorship business concern, insured its factory premises for an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs covering the period 19.08.2004 to 18.08.2005. While so, on 1.1.2005, at about 1.15 p.m., a fire broke out at the factory premises, destroying the oil pipeline insulation, boiler, jalli, coils etc. amounting to Rs. 5,11,315/-. On the very same day, the Complainant informed the Insurance Company vide letter dated 1.1.2005. The Surveyor visited the site on 4.1.2005 and on 5.1.2005 for assessing the loss. Thereafter, the Complainant requested the Insurance Company to settle their claim, but there was no response. On 16.5.2005, the Complainant had written a letter to the second Opposite Party seeking status of its claim, for which it had received a reply dated 25.5.2005 repudiating its claim on the ground that in spite of two letters sent to the Complainant herein, it had failed to deposit the salvage with the Surveyor. Thereafter, the Complainant was informed that the communication was inadvertently sent to the wrong address. Once again, the Complainant requested the second Respondent vide its letter dated 13.6.2005 to re-open the case and provided them with photographs of the damage done along with bills of material used for re-construction and repair of the unit. In spite of repeated requests, the Opposite Parties did not settle the claim. Vexed with their attitude, the Complainant approached the District Forum seeking directions to the Opposite Parties to pay the claim amount of Rs. 5,11,315/- with interest @ 18% per annum, compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs and costs.

(3.) The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 filed their written version stating that they had received the intimation of the said fire accident only vide letter on 4.1.2005. They denied that the Complainant had intimated them on 1.1.2005 and pleaded that the copy of the alleged intimation letter dated 1.1.2005 is different from the actual intimation letter given to them on 4.1.2005. A Surveyor was deputed on 4.1.2005 to assess the loss and he had reported that only some damaged insulation material was shown to him and that only a portion of the insulation of pipes was damaged in the reported fire incident. The factory was in perfect running condition and the damage caused was minimal. It is averred by the Opposite Parties that their Surveyor reminded the Complainant on 15.1.2005 and again on 21.2.2005, but there was no response. The Opposite Parties pleaded in their written version that their repudiation is justified as the Complainant had breached Policy Condition No. 6(b) of the Policy which reads as under: