NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. SARASWATI UDYOG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) National Insurance Company has come up in appeal against the order dated 26th April, 1996 passed by learned District Forum, Panipat, whereby the complaint of M/s. Saraswati Udyog, Panipat against the National Insurance Company has been allowed. According to the complainant, they had imported certain press-packed bales of premutilated and fumigated old woollen rage from Holland and had got this consignment insured from Europe to Panipat. Initially the amount insured was Rs.10 lacs, whereas later on the same was increased to Rs.20 leas due to marine shipment. However, as out of 212 bales, when the consignment was actually unloaded at Bombay, it contained only 165 bales, the com-plainant in formed the Insurance Company about the loss of 47 bales. The Bombay Port Trust by their communications dated 18th December, 1989 and 2nd March, 1991 confirmed the loss of the 47 bales as claimed by the complainant on 1st September, 1989. The claim was further substantiated by the documentary evidence in the form of letters exchanged on 28th February, 1992 and 20th March, 1992, but when the Insurance Company failed to settle the claim, the complainant approached the District Forum, Panipat for the redressal of their grievance. The Insurance Company in their reply pleaded, that there was no deficiency in service on their part; hence the complaint should be rejected. So far as the deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in the assessment of the loss and in settling the claim is concerned, it is sought to be justified by pleading that the Insurance Company did not depute their Surveyor to conduct the survey of the loss in question as the complainant did not deposit the fee for the same. After necessary examination of the record and detailed appreciation of the documentary evidence produced by the complainant, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint by granting the following relief : "for the foregoing reasons, we accept this petition and direct the respondents to make a payment of Rs.1,25,960/- on account of loss of 47 bales of woolen rags, alongwith interest @ 18% per annum, from the expiry of three months after 1.9.1989, the date on which the claim in question was lodged with the respondents, till payment. In addition to that the respondents are directed to make a payment of Rs.12,000/- to the complainant on account of special damages, for the amount spent by them in the search of the lost bags, including the costs of these proceedings. This complaint is disposed of accordingly. "

(2.) In the appeal before us, which is barred by time by two days, we have condoned the delay as the same was due to some lack of communication in the office of the Insurance Company. So far as merits are concerned, the learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that no doubt the complainant had lodged the claim for the loss of the bales promptly, which was also substantiated by the Bombay Port Trust Authorities, yet they should have lodged FIR also. Since that has not been done, the Insurance Company had repudiated the claim. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant we do not find any merit in the plea. There is no legal requirement that when a certain consignment is insured and the claim has been filed against the Insurance Company, which is duly authenticated and supported by the statutory and responsible authorities like Bombay Port Trust, the complainant is still supposed to lodge the FIR with the police. If the Insurance Company had any doubt, they could easily have the fact verified and the loss assessed at their own end; but to cover their remissness the plea taken by them that since the fee of the Surveyor had not been deposited the Insurance Company did not have the fact verified or the loss assessed by their Surveyor, is not sustainable in law.

(3.) So far as the amount of the loss suffered and the other damages claimed by the complainant is concerned, there is no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion as to whether the same has been correctly quantified or not. We have gone-through the records produced before the learned District Forum and at page 129 of the same, we find a detailed affidavit filed by the complainant showing the expenses incurred by them and the extent of damage suffered. There is no rebuttal to that by the Insurance Company. On that basis, the loss assessed by the learned District Forum and the relief granted is wholly borne on record. Consequently, we do not find any legal infirmity in the order passed by the learned District Forum and the same is upheld. The appeal is wholly devoid of force and the same is dismissed with costs, which are quantified as Rs.2,000/-. Since a token amount of Rs.50,000/- was directed to be paid by the appellant-Insurance Company at the time the appeal was entertained on 6th June, 1996, the same shall be adjusted and die balance amount of the claim alongwith the interest awarded upto date shall be paid by the Insurance Company to the complainant within one month. Records of the case shall be returned to District Forum, Panipat alongwith me copy of this order.