Chandan Nag vs ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

MR. Anupam Dasgupta, Presiding Member-This appeal, filed by the original complainant before the Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guwahati (in short, "the State Commission") in complaint case No. 20 of 2002, seeks to challenge the order dated 18.9.2010 of the State Commission.

THE complainant had approached the State Commission with allegations of deficiency in service against the respondents/Insurance Companies and their officials inasmuch as the respondents/opposite parties (OPs) repudiated the claim of the complainant in respect of damage by fire to his insured stocks of clothings, other merchandise, furniture, fixtures, etc.

AFTER hearing the parties and considering the pleadings, evidence and material on record, the State Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the OPs as under: "By accepting the survey report and giving due weightage to them we have found it expedient to accept the fixation of the insurance benefit at Rs. 6,00,000 as the value of stock at risk as assessed by the Surveyor of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 along with Rs. 50,000 for the FFF, total of which comes to Rs. 6,50,000. Out of this amount salvage of Rs. 24,000 will not be eligible to the insured. Accordingly, the eligible amount comes to Rs. 6,26,000 which is to be apportioned between the two Insurance Companies at the ratio of 20 : 6. In view of that, by withdrawing the repudiation the Oriental Insurance Company (OP Nos. 1 and 2) will pay to the insured (complainant) a total sum of Rs. 4,38,200 (Rupees four lakh thirty eight thousand two hundred) along with interest of 9% from 9.4.2002, that is three months after the incident till payment in full. The balance amount of Rs. 1,87,800 will be paid by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. (opp. Nos. 3 and 4) by withdrawing repudiation along with 9% interest from 9.4.2002 till payment in full. Such payments will be made within three months from the pronouncement of this judgment failing which the interest rate will be increased to 12% from expiry period till executing of this judgment as per the established procedure."

IT may be noticed that both the OPs/Insurance Companies had repudiated their respective shares of the claims of the complainant on account of certain alleged acts of fraud committed by the latter. What the State Commission observed in this context is as under: "It is an established fact that the insured''s shop was almost totally gutted in the incident. It is not accepted that some vital records/documents were not perished in such a devastating incident. The insured might have inflated the claim and there lies the duty of the Surveyor to assess the actual damage after proper inspection/investigation. The insured had not intimated the Insurance Companies about taking the same stock at risk in the other insurance. Due to that fact the Surveyors had recommended for apportionment of the liabilities of the total compensation due to the complainant. Indulging in fraud by the insured is an allegation only and no attempt was made by the opposite parties to prove it and hence it is not considered for delivering the judgment. Further, the Surveyors have categorically stated that leaving aside the doubtful documents safely the value at risk may be at Rs. 5,69,038 and Rs. 6,00,000."

IN other words, the State Commission repelled the contentions of the Insurance Companies that the complainant had engaged in any fraudulent activity though the latter did not (undisputedly) maintain appropriate and up-to-date records of stocks, purchases, sales, etc., nor did he inform either of the two OP/Insurance Companies about having taken a policy from the other.

I have heard Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the complainant/appellant. Mr. Bhattacherjee submits that though the State Commission has concluded that there was no fraudulent activity on the part of the appellant/complainant, it has, for some reason, not accepted the total claim filed by the complainant.

FROM a reading of the reports of the two independent Surveyors engaged respectively by the two insurance companies, it is clear that both the Surveyors have made an equitable assessment of the loss despite the serious handicap of absence of reliable basic records like stock registers, books of accounts, supporting bills and vouchers in respect of purchases, sales, etc. From the two Surveyors'' reports, it is difficult to maintain any doubt that the reports or the findings therein are, in any way, biased the appellant against the terms and conditions of the two insurance policies in question. In fact, Mr. Bhattacharjee was unable to show with any degree of conviction that either of the two Surveyors had erred prejudicially to the appellant/complainant and if so how.

IN view of the foregoing discussion, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed in limine.