M/S. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. vs M/S. RATAN EXPORTS & INDUSTRIES LTD.

This First Appeal by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (for short "the Insurance Company") is directed against the order dated 09.04.2009, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi at New Delhi (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint Case No. C-24/2004. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while accepting the claim made by the Complainant in its Complaint, in toto, has directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant a sum of 30,59,555/- as claimed under the insurance policy towards the actual loss and a further sum of 1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, including cost of litigation.

Since, on a bare reading of the impugned order, we are of the view that the said direction is not sustainable, as it does not record any reason in support of the final conclusion, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts, giving rise to the present Appeal, in greater detail. It would suffice to note that the Complainant had preferred with the Insurance Company the afore-noted claim in respect of a consignment of 5766 cartons of canned fruit and 1290 cartons of assorted jam from Kolkata (Port of Lading) to Illychevsk, Russia under BoL No. MOS/1 dated 04.08.1992. The said consignment was covered under a Marine Open Insurance Policy, obtained by the Complainant from the Insurance Company for an assured sum of 2,00,00,000/-. However, when the consignment reached the Port of Destination, all the cartons were found damaged. Consequently, on the request of the consignee, a Surveyor was appointed to carry out quality and quantity survey of the consignment. On receipt of report of the Surveyor, wherein he had observed that the entire consignment had been damaged, the Complainant informed the Insurance Company about it and preferred the afore-noted claim.

The Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss claimed to have been suffered by the Complainant. Although it appears from the record that some correspondence was exchanged between the Complainant and the Surveyor, wherein the Surveyor had observed that the requisite information, as sought for, had not been furnished by the Complainant, but evidently there was no response from the side of the Insurance Company on the said claim. Perhaps a stony silence on the part of the Insurance Company prompted the Complainant to issue a legal notice dated 28.05.2002 to the Insurance Company. Unfortunately, the Insurance Company chose not to respond to the same.

Left with no option, the Complainant filed the Complaint against the Insurance Company before the State Commission.

The Complaint was resisted by the Insurance Company on diverse grounds. It was also pleaded that the Complaint was barred by limitation, inasmuch as the claim having been preferred as far back as on 08.04.1993, the Complaint was filed only in the year 2004, i.e. much after the expiry of the statutory period.

Referring to the letters exchanged between the parties from time to time, the State Commission has come to the conclusion that the Complaint was not barred by limitation. Insofar as the merits of the claim were concerned, as noted above, the State Commission has allowed the full claim made in the Complaint, by a short and cryptic order, which reads as under: "7. Since the Surveyors of the OP failed to assess the loss on the basis of documents and information provided by the complainant and have wrongly filed the claim as "No Claim" as it was their duty to assess the loss based upon the documents available with them and produced by the complainant, we have no other option left than to allow the complaint as large number of documents have been filed by the complainant as to the loss suffered by him which are on record."

Hence, the present Appeal.

It is manifest from the afore-extracted order that the State Commission has failed to record any reasons in support of its conclusion that the loss assessed by the Complainant was in order. Filing of a "large number of documents" without even a remote reference to any one of them, let alone its analysis, in our view, was not sufficient to accept the claim made. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court that the Authorities constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 exercise quasi-judicial powers for redressal of consumer disputes and it is, therefore, imperative that such a body should arrive at a conclusion based on reasons. (See: Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital, (2000) 7 SCC 668 - a Three Judge Bench decision). We are constrained to observe that the impugned order clearly suffers from the vice of non-application of mind.

Consequently, while affirming the decision of the State Commission insofar as the question of limitation is concerned, we set aside the impugned order, with a direction to the Insurance Company to appoint a Surveyor within two weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order to assess the loss, claimed to have been suffered by the Complainant, on the basis of the documents filed by the Complainant before the previous Surveyor or with the Insurance Company. Since the incident took place as far back as in the year 1992, we permit both the parties to file additional document(s) in support of their rival stands before the Surveyor. We direct that the Surveyor shall submit his report within eight weeks of the date of his appointment and the Insurance Company will take a final decision on the claim in question within four weeks of the date of receipt of the Surveyor''s report. Needless to add that it will be open to the aggrieved party to seek redressal of its grievance in accordance with law. We further direct that the amount released to the Complainant in terms of the order dated 18.07.2014, passed by this Commission, shall abide by the final decision by the Insurance Company. In other words, if the Insurance Company finally decides to reject the claim, the Complainant shall refund the principal amount, so withdrawn, to the Insurance Company within four weeks of the receipt of the decision of the Insurance Company.

The statutory deposit made at the time of filing the Appeal shall stand transferred to the Consumer Legal Aid Account - NCDRC.

The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.