B.NANDKUMAR vs SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD

IN this complaint, the allegations are made against the New INdia Assurance Co. Ltd., for deficiency in service. The complainant alleged that they had an INsurance Policy for the value of Rs. 5,00,000/- covering the risk of flood water, fire and allied perils. The Policy was issued on 31.5.1990, covering the period between 31.5.1990 to 30.5.1991. The complainant alleged that they suffered heavy damages to their building, due to torrential rains around 15th June, 1990 to 16th June, 1990. It is alleged that, due to flood, water entered into their shop and godowns, they suffered loss of their electrical goods worth Rs. 1,84,000/-. However, the complainant''s claim was unilaterally rejected. Hence, this complaint, claiming Rs. 1,84,230/- with interest and compensation. The claim has been opposed by the INsurance Company by filing the written version. According to the opposite party, when the Surveyor surveyed the alleged damages, he found that the damaged goods were purchased between the years 1981 to 1985 and un-sold electrical goods, which were having scrap value. It is stated by the Surveyor that the goods were already damaged (matter due) to the occurrence of the flood. We have heard the complainant by Shri Shah and opposite party by Shri Singh, Advocate.

WE have perused the allegations in the complaint and written version filed by the opposite party and relevant documents. In our considered view, the opposite party wrongly rejected the complainant''s Insurance Claim for the following reasons:- The stipulation in the Insurance Policy did not make any distinction between the new goods and old goods. On the contrary, we find that the Policy covers all the goods in the shop and godown, irrespective of the fact that whether they are old or damaged. Therefore, the opposite party is wrong to deny the complainant''s complaint in a sweeping statement that the goods were of old quality. In our view, the Surveyor''s report is perfunctory and cannot be relied upon. In any case, the opposite party has not placed any evidence on record to justify their claim of rejection, except the Surveyor''s opinion. The opposite party has mentioned in the written version that the loss was surveyed by M/s J.N. Boda Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., but the opposite party has not placed on record any material in the nature of technical report or expert''s report to support their submission. This is the only ground on which the complainant''s claim came to be rejected. On the contrary, we find that the opposite party appears to have rejected the complainant''s claim on un-reasonable and irrelevant consideration. The National Commission in the case of M/s. Uniplas India Ltd. v. The National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in I (1992) CPJ 169 (NC) has held that Insurance Company has reduced the amount payable under the Insurance Policy Policy arbitrarily, unfairly and has not settled the claim with reasonable expedition has been held guilty of deficiency in service towards insured. Under these circumstances, we find that the complainant has successfully proved his allegations to the effect that he has suffered considerable loss, as a result of negligence in the service of the opposite party. Hence, we pass the following order:- ORDER

The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to settle the complainant''s claim for the amount of Rs. 1,84,230/- with 18% interest per annum from the date of rejection of the claim, till payment. The aforesaid amount be paid by the opposite party to the complainant within 30 days from the date of issue of this order. Complaint allowed.