SAMRAT TEXTILE PVT. LTD. vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

THIS original petition is filed by M/s. Samrat Textiles Co. Ltd. against M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. The facts in brief which lead the complainant to approach the National Commission are as under :

THE complainant, a private limited company carrying on the business of manufacturing of clothes at Gagol Road, Partapur (Meerut), U.P. THE company had taken an insurance policy from the opposite party, Insurance Company, covering risks of burglary and dacoity of the goods kept in the godown of factory and office situated at Gagol Road, Partapur (Meerut) for a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs for the period 28.8.1991 to 27.8.1992 and paid the requisite premia. On the intervening night of 6th and 7th October, 1991 at around 2.30 a.m., a dacoity took place and readymade cloth, cotton etc. worth Rs. 6,09,000/- was looted. Immediately thereafter a report was lodged with the police who were able to arrest some of the dacoits. On being informed the Insurance Company deputed one Mr. Umakant, Surveyor to assess the loss and thereafter appointed M/s. Mehta & Padamsey, Surveyors to submit a report. M/s. Mehta & Padamsey Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. inspected the spot, made enquiries, checked the registers and required further information from the complainant vide letter dated 22.10.1991 who submitted the same without delay. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant had borrowed monies from different financial institutions and due to the loss that had occurred on account of the dacoity, he could not make the due instalments to those institutions, as a result of which he had to pay huge amounts on account of penal interest to those financial institutions. THE complainant in his complaint has also alleged that the opposite party No. 4 the Branch Manager of the Alipore Branch of the Insurance Company had demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for early settlement of the claim and when the complainant refused to yield to his request, the opposite party No. 4, had misused the blank papers which had the signatures of the Managing Director of the complainant which papers were obtained from the complainant by the opposite party No. 4 for releasing the payment. In spite of submitting the letter of subrogation and complying with all the other formalities, the opposite party No. 4 had sent letters to the complainant for making further inquiry. Completely vexed with the delaying tactics of the opposite parties, the complainant has approached this Commission by way of the Original Petition claiming the amount of loss caused due to dacoity, i.e. Rs. 6,09,000/- with interest at 24% p.a. from 7.10.1991 till the date of payment; Rs. 3 lakhs for the loss caused to the business; Rs. 20,000/- spent on account of correspondence; Rs. 1 lakh for mental torture; Rs. 16,34,313/- to be paid to the financial institutions on account of penal interest; Rs. 20,000/- for costs of the petition; Rs. 25,000/- for fee of the Counsels and Rs. 25,000/- for clerkage.

On notice being issued, the opposite parties Nos. 1-4 have filed their replies. The opposite parties in their reply stated that there is at present no conclusive finding by the police authorities as to whether dacoity had indeed been committed and denied that the policy also covered loss in case of dacoity; that the survey report is submitted by the Surveyors is not binding on the Insurance Company and can at best be considered to be one of the several factors to be taken into account by the opposite parties; and lastly that the claim is time barred as the cause of action had arisen on 6/7th October, 1991.

DURING the course of hearing, the opposite party Nos. 5 to 7 were deleted from the array of parties as no relief was claimed from them and hence we need not discuss the written version of the opposite parties 5 to 7. We have heard both the parties, gone through the reply and the various annexures filed on record. We have also seen the survey reports of M/s. Mehta & Padamsey Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Soni & Co., Surveyors. M/s. Mehta & Padamsey Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. has assessed the loss at Rs. 4,92,197/- as per the Trading Account, whereas the M/s. Soni & Co., the Loss Assessors has assessed the loss at Rs. 3,95,271/-. We allow the claim to the extent of Rs. 3,95,271/- as assessed by M/s. Soni & Co. The difference appears to have occurred because of valuation of total stock assessed by M/s. Mehta & Padamsey Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. at Rs. 9,70,222/- while M/s. Soni & Co. found the total value of the stock to be based on the books and records maintained by the insured as Rs. 8,97,222/- which we are inclined to accept. This difference in value of stocks has resulted in the difference in the assessment of the loss. Though M/s. Mehta & Padamsey Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. accepted the factum of burglary/dacoity, M/s. Soni & Co. has not accepted this fact. It is on record that certain goods have been ceased from two persons who have been apprehended. In the face of this the denial of factum of burglary cannot be accepted. The plea of the opposite party that there was no burglary/dacoity is unethical and lacking in bonafides. It is most unfortunate that the opposite party - the insurance Company - should be resorting to such pleas. However, the amount of loss as assessed by M/s. Soni & Co. is not disputed even by the complainant. In that view of the matter we allow the amount as assessed by M/s. Soni & Co. i.e. Rs. 3,95,271/- together with interest at 12%. The interest will accrue from two months after the date of dacoity till the date of payment. These amounts shall be paid to the complainant by the Insurance Company within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The complaint is allowed in the above terms with costs assessed at Rs. 5,000/-. Complaint allowed.