National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs RUNGAJAUN TEA AND PLANTATION INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.

THIS appeal is filed against the order dated 3.5.1996 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in S.C. Case No. 484/O/94 whereby the State Commission allowed the complainant directing the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 16,32,216 with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from January, 1992 till the payment from one month from the date of communication of that order.

THE facts in brief which led the complainant to approach the State Commission are as under : THE complainant got his properties worth Rs. 87,10,000 insured with M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. for the period between 27.3.1991 and 26.3.1992 and paid the required premium. On 10.4.1992 there was a stormy cyclone and torrential rains which caused substantial loss to the tea gardens and houses situated therein. THE Insurance Company was informed by Telegram and its letter dated 22.4.1991. THE complainant made a claim of Rs. 28,66,000. THE Insurance Company appointed Surveyors, Mr. Palchowdhury and Mr. T.K. Mukherjee. They submitted their preliminary survey report dated 28.2.1992. As per the preliminary report, they visited the site on 25/26 April, 1991 and in course of their visit, they observed that there was an extensive damage to the building, kuchha houses and other structures in the tea garden by cyclone storm with torrential rains. It was observed by them that in the area there were bungalows for General Manager, Assistant Managers, and a large number of kuccha houses for labour, dispensary and other quarters including factory premises. They estimated the loss at Rs. 28,66,000, details are given in that report.

Thereafter, second Surveyors submitted report on 6.1.1994 wherein it was stated that they were appointed by Senior Divisional Manager, Jorhat Division, vide letter dated 14.5.1991, which was received as late as on 29th May, 1991; the joint survey could not be taken before 27th July, 1991 owing to disruption of road communication caused by devastating flood all over the Barak valley. Thereafter, the estimate of repairs for reconstruction drawn up by M/s. SUPCO, Engineers on 27.4.1992 was received through the insurer after a lapse of more than one year, i.e., on 8.5.1993. It was pointed out that flood, postal delay, communication gap and similar other factors resulted in inordinate delay in processing the case. According to their report 300 units of kuchha labour quarters were badly affected, out of which a large number were completely destroyed and others suffered heavy damage with their roofs blown away and the structures also affected badly.

IN the course of survey, they found that actually 56 units of kuchha quarters were destroyed completely, while the roofs of only 18 units were blown off. They have also taken into consideration the estimates of loss prepared by Civil Engineering firm of Silchar amounting to Rs. 24,09,233. It is also mentioned that most of the damage done to the property was repaired before the Survey, the damaged quarters could not be adequately covered with figures. Finally, they estimated the loss at Rs. 1,56,926. State Commission, considering the aforesaid two reports, as well as the estimate prepared by SUPCO, Engineers, arrived at the conclusion that reports submitted by SUPCO were also relied upon by the Surveyor and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs. 16,32,216. It is to be mentioned that M/s. SUPCO had submitted second report on the instructions of the Surveyors of the Insurance Company wherein the estimate of repairs was reduced to Rs. 16,32,216 from Rs. 24,09,233.

THERE was no justifiable reason not to accept the said report and to hold that insured was entitled to only Rs. 1,56,926 on the basis of so-called second Surveyor''s report. In the preliminary report dated 28.2.1992 submitted by the Surveyor it was pointed out that in all 192 houses used by the labourers were completely damaged by the cyclone; 105 kuchha houses were damaged and the roofs and wooden constructions of residential bungalow of the General Manager were blown off. Excessive damage was noticed by the Surveyors who visited the spot and submitted preliminary report. As against this, the second survey report is of no value in view of the fact that it was prepared after a lapse of three years. Further, in the opening part of the report it has been specifically mentioned that due to successive cyclonic storms that lashed the tea garden and the surrounding areas on 10.4.1992 and 13.4.1991, the entire Barak Valley was affected because of devastating flood; communication was completely disrupted all over the valley. Thereafter, they could visit tea estate only on 22/24 July, 1991 for survey. They have also noticed that most of the damaged property was repaired before the survey and, therefore, the damage caused could not be adequately covered by the photographs. Further, for one or other reason, they adopted a curious process and arrived at the conclusion that loss could be estimated at Rs. 1,56,926. In our view, this report cannot be the basis for passing any award and that has been rightly not relied upon by the State Commission. There was no justifiable reason not to rely upon preliminary report submitted. In the result, there is no substance in the Revision Petition. However, considering the dispute involved and the facts, in our view, the rate of interest awarded by the State Commission is on higher side and is required to be modified. We, therefore, direct that complainant would be entitled to recover Rs. 16,32,216 with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 1st January, 1992 till its payment. The Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.

THERE shall be no order as to costs. Revision Petition disposed of.