ARVIND CONDUCTORS (P) LTD vs National Insurance Co.Ltd

THE complainant obtained Burglary Policy (Business Premises) regarding its Works situated as Surajpur Industrial Area, District Ghaziabad for Rs. 20.00 lacs from the opposite party for the period 3.5.1990 to 2.5.1991 on payment of the prescribed premium. THE risk included stock and raw material. On the night between 13th and 14th January, 1991, a dacoity took place in the factory when the employees including the Watchman were locked-up in a small room at gun-point and the miscreants removed huge quantity of aluminium wires. THE complainant lodged FIR No. 19/91 under Section 380, IPC and also informed the Insurance Company. THE Insurance Company appointed Thapar, Srinivasan and Kapoor Private Limited, Surveyors who inspected the premises on the next following day. THE complainants were licencee in respect of L4 licence under the Excise Regulations and were keeping necessary records with regard to the material received in the Works and goods manufactured by them. After examining the relevant record and making necessary enquiries including enquiries from the police the aforesaid Surveyors submitted their report dated 27.4.1992 concluding that the claim for Rs. 1,70,250/- made by the complainant be settled by payment of Rs. 1,42,385/-. THE Insurance Company took more than 14 months and by its letter dated 22.6.1993 conveyed to the complainant that it was willing to settle the claim as recommended by the Surveyor and that the complainant should submit voucher for full and final settlement and subrogation letter to enable them to issue the cheque. THE complainants case was that they had claimed the actual amount of loss suffered and there was no reason why the total claim was not being allowed. Further grievance of the complainant was that the price of aluminium wire had since risen and the market value of the loss suffered by the complainant had mounted to Rs. 3.00 lacs. THE complainant followed up the matter by writing to various Authorities including the Central Vigilance Commission, and ultimately filed the present complaint dated 19.8.1993 claiming the total amount of claim made by them, Rs. 6.00 lacs on account of compensation and interest @ 18% per annum on the amount claimed from the date of loss together with future interest and costs.

IN the written statement filed by the INsurance Company, it was stated that the amount assessed by the Surveyor had been offered to the complainant and in case the complainant disputed the same the only alternative was to have the amount determined through arbitration under Clause 13 of the policy. With regard to the time taken in making the offer, it was stated that inspite of the several letters dated 22.6.1993, followed by two reminders in July and August, 1993, the complainant furnished the necessary discharge letter and the subrogation letter only on 25.9.1993 when cheque for the amount assessed by the Surveyor was handed over to them. A formal written statement was also filed on behalf of the U.P. Finance Corporation, impleaded as opposite party-2 in view of the Agreed Bank Clause.

We have heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Mahe, Advocate for the complainant as none appeared for opposite party and have carefully gone through the records.

THE question arising for consideration is whether there was unreasonable delay in the settlement of the claim and if so, whether in the facts and circumstances of case such delay amounted to deficiency in service. The second question is whether in view of the discharge voucher and subrogation letter acknowledging that the complainant had received the amount in full and final settlment. the complainant was estopped from filing this complaint.

THE loss occurred on 14.1.1991. Report of the Surveyor is dated 27.4.1992. According to the complainant the loss actually suffered was to the tune of Rs. 1,70,250/-. In terms of the market price of the goods lost, the loss suffered was to the extent of Rs. 3.00 lacs and that there was no justification for not allowing the total claim. Apart from the fact that the total claim had not been allowed, there was a delay of almost two years and nine months. It was in these circumstances that the complainant was compelled to accept the amount and complying with the various requirements including signing the dotted line to receive the amount. In other words, the amount had not been received with the free consent of the complainant. Be that as it may, we cannot undertake the extensive exercise of determining the actual loss suffered by the complainant in these proceedings of a summary. In case the complainant is not satisfied with the amount determined by the Surveyor, it can move the Civil Court or have the amount determined through arbitration in terms of the Clause 13 of the policy. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not think that the complainant received the amount voluntarily and of its own free Will. The facts make out a case of deficiency in service and the complainant is not estopped from filing this complaint. We are fortified in reaching this conclusion by a decision of the National Commission in National Insurance Company Limited v. M/s. Lalchand Jain & Sons, 1997 (1) CCC 20 (NS). The opposite party-1 is directed to pay interest on the sum of Rs. 1,42,385/- from two months after the date of the report of the Surveyor (which is dated 27.4.1992) till 24.9.1993, as the amount was paid on 25.9.1993 together with the costs which are assessed as Rs. 5,000/-. The complaint is disposed of in these terms. A copy of the order be conveyed to the parties. Complaint disposed of with costs.