NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. vs M/S. SKY INDUSTRIES

M/s Sky Industries Dahkora Road, Bahadurgarh, transacts the business of manufacturing of Alumina Ferric used purification of Potable Water. During the night of 19 September 2005, th due to heavy storm and rain, whole working shed of factory with finish stock of Alumina Sulphate Solid liquid and other chemicals lying in the shed were totally destroyed. Intimation was given to the police as well as the New India Assurance Company Ltd., the insurer. The complainant company suffered a loss of Rs.14,52,000/-. The complainant re-assessed and filtered the destroyed materials and in this way, the loss came down to Rs.8,98,960/-. The claim of the complainant company could not be settled and therefore, the case was filed with the District Forum.

The case was contested by the OP. The principal plea set up by the OP was that the complainant has settled the matter fully and finally vide letter of consent dated 20.02.2006, Ex.R-8, which runs as follows:- "LETTER OF CONSENT

I, SURESH LUTHRA PARTNER OF M/S SKY INDUSTRIES V. DEHKORA (JHAJJAR) DO HEREBY ACCORD MY CONSENT AT AN ASSESSED LOSS OF RS.170000/- (RUPEES ONE LAC SEVENTY THOUSAND ONLY) IN FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT OF OUR STORM CLAIM DT. 10.09.2005 WITH THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BO BAHADURGARH SUBJECT TO THE POLICY TERMS AND CONDITIONS. THE LOSS HAS BEEN FINALISED AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSIONS WITH ME.

DT. 20.02.2006

FOR SKY INDUSTRIES"

(SURESH LUTHRA)

PARTNER

20/2"

The surveyor also came to the conclusion that the complainant had suffered the loss in the sum of Rs.1.20 lakh.

The District Forum, however, allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay a sum of Rs.8,98,960/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint, i.e., from 15.05.2007, till realization of final payment. It also imposed Rs.5,000/- on account of mental agony.

Aggrieved by that order, the Insurance Company preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission reduced the compensation to Rs.05,01,800/-, as was initially claimed by the complainant.

We have heard the counsel for the parties. First submission made by the counsel for the petitioner was that there was full and final settlement on 20.02.2006, therefore, as per the Surveyor''s report, the complainant is entitled to Rs.1,20,000/- because the letter of consent mentions, subject to the policy''s terms and conditions. On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant submitted that the signatures of the complainant were obtained on a blank paper. Although, this argument carries exiguous value, yet, concomitant circumstances must be understood, too. First of all, there is over-writing on the date. This letter is dated 20.02.2006. However, even after this settlement, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. sent further letters dated 25.05.2006 and 23.11.2006, calling upon the complainant to produce the documents. If the matter was settled, what was the need of sending these letters? These facts and circumstances cast an aura of deep suspicion over the bonafides of the Insurance Company. Furthermore, no amount has yet been paid to the Complainant. Counsel for the petitioner wanted to explain the same on the specious plea that the complainant immediately filed the complaint but the record shows that the complaint was filed after a considerable time, on 15.05.2007. In the normal procedure the cheque is given to the complainant immediately or simultaneously. The Insurance Company should have known that such like cockeyed evidence cannot stand in a Court of Law.

Now, we turn to the report of the Surveyor. His report cannot be believed because the same is contradictory and discrepant. The State Commission has detailed paras No. 15, 18, 19, 22 & 24 in its report. The same hardly need reiteration. It is noteworthy that Surveyor did not find any discrepancy with the stock books, account books, the bank record and the loss. We fully agree with the finding given by the State Commission at the end of its judgment, it observed:- "While the OP has laid stress upon clause 15, the complainant has laid stress upon clause 18. The loss due to heavy rain and storm has not been denied by the OP. Dispute is only with regard to the quantum of assessment. While the complainant has lodged the claim of Rs.14,52,000/-, surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs.1,20,000/-. A perusal of clause 15 reproduced above shows that initially the complainant has filed a claim of Rs.5,01,800/- on estimate basis and later revised to Rs.14.52 lacs on the basis of books of account. The stock that suffered loss would be actual stock available, which may vary with the stock books. Once the complainant has lodged the claim of Rs.5,01,800/- it could not be multiplied by three times on the basis of books of accounts, as complainant at least knew what was the stock available with him. Learned District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant and directed the OP to pay a sum of Rs.8,98,960/-.

Taking all these facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to reduce the amount of claim from 8,98,960/- to 5,01,800/- as was initially claimed. Rest of the impugned order is maintained".

In addition to that, it must be mentioned here that in para No. 19, the surveyor came to the conclusion. The State Commission mentioned the following facts:- "The insured has determined a stock of Rs.22.27 lac as on 10.9.2005 i.e. just before loss which in uniformity with the stocks declared with the bankers. Keeping in view the fact that the insured is maintaining day-to-day stock records, the stocks declared in the interim trading account as on 10.9.2005, being certified by the auditors is accepted for assessment purposes".

The Revision Petition is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed.