Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs P.G.Clothing Rep. by its Proprietor S. Devadhas

THE three Revision Petitioners are respectively the regional office, branch office and the head office of the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. THE Revision Petition seeks to challenge the order of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in F.A. No.500/2006. While all three Revision Petitioners were parties before the State Commission and the District Forum, R.P No.1 and R.P. No.3 had chosen not to present their case before the District Forum. THE District Forum had therefore proceeded ex-parte against these two.

THE facts of this case in brief are that the Complainant M/s. P.G. Clothing, was a garment making unit in Chennai, which worked on job-work basis for other garments makers, in addition to working for itself. On 12.10.2001 all the stocks in the unit, including finished goods, raw material and plant and machinery, had got destroyed in a fire accident. The Complainant filed his claim with the Insurance Company i.e. RP-2. The latter appointed a surveyor on 13.10.2001, who inspected the premises on the same day and submitted his report on 11.02.2002. However, the claim of the Complainant had remained unsettled, when the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum, North Chennai was invoked on 30.4.2003. The District Forum allowed the Complaint and directed OP-2 to pay ` 478761.60 to the Complainant along with interest of 9%. OP-1 and OP-3 were directed to pay him, jointly and severally, a compensation of ` 10,000 and costs of ` 1,000.

In the appeal against the above order the State Commission modified the award to ` 2,92,622, being the quantum of loss as assessed by the surveyor, without any change in the amount of compensation and cost.

WE have perused the records of the case and heard the counsel for the Revision Petitioners. The main ground is that the determination of the cause of fire was necessary before deciding the claim under the policy. But, the revision petition does not explain, how. However, this question has been examined at length, by both the fora below, and rejected. The State Commission has noted that the surveyor s report accepts that it was a case of fire accident. Therefore, the Commission agreed with the District Forum that the cause of fire was not essential for determination of the quantum of loss or liability of the insurer. WE would also like to note that the surveyor s report also accepts that when the premises caught fire, no one on behalf of the Complainant was present, as the unit had been closed at the end of the working day. This flows from the claim that the building owner had himself, as per the Surveyor, switched off the mains. In this background, we do not understand what was sought to be achieved by the Respondents, when they tried to delay a decision on the claim under the policy. No foul play is alleged. If there were such an allegation, the burden of proof would be on the person/party alleging foul play. WE therefore, agree with the conclusion reached by the State Commission on this point. The Revision Petitioners have also challenged the impugned order on the ground that goods in process and goods held in trust as two separate categories, are meaningless under the policy. The petition argues that the goods of the two other concerns would also be separately insured elsewhere and they might have secured compensation for the same. This is a meaningless assumption on the part of the Revision Petitioners, as they have not referred to any evidence produce before the fora below to substantiate it. On the contrary, the order of the State Commission clarifies that, as claimed by the Complainant, the stocks belonging to other owners namely, V.V.R. Apparels and Unitex Fashion, were in the unit of the Complainant to perform the job work contract. This claim of the Complainant has not been challenged before the State Commission. We also find that the following averment in the Written Response of RP-2/OP-2 before the District Forum, does in fact support the claim of the Complainant It has taken considerable time to assess the manner of accident and alleged loss, more particularly to ascertain the stock of materials as the complainant/Insured did not maintain any stock register to verify the claim of the complainant. Only with the help of Invoices and Delivery Memo issued by the other companies to the Insured for job work, the nature of materials at the time of fire was verified. The Commission has also noted that the Complainant alone would be answerable for the goods of these two owners, destroyed on the premises of the Complainant. Moreover, the value of the entire stocks damaged/destroyed in this fire does not exceed the limit of ` 10 lacs for stocks, under the policy. We therefore, agree with the conclusion of the State Commission that the policy covers the entire stocks on the premises insured, at the time of the fire accident, whether it belonged to the Complainant alone or was entrusted to the latter by other parties for doing the job work.

FOR the reasons detailed above, we do not find any merit in this Revision Petition. Accordingly, the relief awarded by the State Commission is upheld. The parties to this revision petition shall bear their own costs.