Satyam Traders vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

THESE are sets of three appeals arising from a common order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chhatisgarh. As noted by the State Commission, the dispute involved in all the three complaints is similar in nature and the Surveyor has also given one report. All the three claimant firms belong to the same family and, more significantly, the stock of all the firms was stored in a single godown, when allegedly damaged in the rain of 21.9.2006. The three claims arise from three different insurance policy and are for amounts indicated below:- First Appeal No.38 of 2011 Rs. 97.25 lacs First Appeal No.36 of 2011 Rs. 49.99 lacs First Appeal No.37 of 2011 Rs. 49.98 lacs Therefore, the three appeals are taken up together for disposal through a common order.

IT is seen from the order of the State Commission that these matters had earlier been decided by the State Commission on 31.3.2009. The Complaints were dismissed on the ground of the principle of res judicata. However, when the matter came to the National Commission in appeal, the State Commission was directed to deal with the complaints in accordance with law. The respondents were directed to ensure that the Investigator /Surveyor submitted the report within four months and it is filed before the State Commission. The Complainants were directed to co-operate with the Investigator/Surveyor. These directions were passed by the National Commission on 12.1.2010. The matter was accordingly considered afresh by the State Commission, Chhatisgarh and final order passed on 12.1.2011. The complaint petitions stand dismissed by the State Commission in this order. Reasons for dismissal are detailed in the impugned order in the following terms:- It is abundantly clear from report of Meteorological Department that there was only 1.10 m.m. rainfall on 21.09.2006 when allegedly water inundation was caused. Such rainfall is not sufficient to cause water inundation in the godown of the complainant and the more so upto the height alleged in the complaint and causing huge damage. Moreover the averment of the complainant that he got the damaged goods thrown away due to foul smell also raises doubt. As per settled practice the insured is not authorized to throw away the damaged material prior to survey being conducted by surveyor duly appointed by the insurer. The truck used for throwing away the damaged stock is ultimately found to be that of the claimants family. The tactics of non-cooperation adopted by the claimant in not providing documents and not facilitating survey despite repeated correspondence and requests by the surveyor speaks volumes. So we find that though the surveyor has assessed the loss yet the claim is not payable as the allegation of heavy rains on 21.9.2006 is not supported by the report of the meteorological department. The complainants being without substance are dismissed.

In the appeal before us, the appellant has made several unsubstantiated allegations/comments against lack of cooperation from the Surveyor Mr. S.K. Kansal. It is alleged that the Surveyor has not followed the instructions and not submitted the report. A lot of details pertain to actions prior to 12.1.2010, when the matter was remanded to the State Commission and therefore, are of no direct relevance to the impugned order of 12.1.2011.

FOLLOWING the directions of the State Commission, the Surveyor had filed his report on 5.10.2010. The order of the State Commission is assailed by the appellants for failure to consider the fact that there was a heavy rain at Raipur between 13.8.2006 to 22.9.2006 (mistyped as 2001). We fail to understand why the Appellants did not produce authentic rainfall data for this period to substantiate their claim.

THE appellants have also assailed the impugned order on the ground that it ignores the finding of the Surveyor Shri S.K. Sur, which were much closer in time than the subsequent report of Shri S.K. Kansal. THE appellant has also objected to the State Commission accepting the report of the metrological department in arriving at their conclusions, as against the affidavit of the driver Pramod Mani regarding the flood damage of 21.09.2006. We have mentioned above the observations of the State Commission that according to the report of the metrological department the rainfall on 21.09.2006 was 1.1mm only. Rainfall of this magnitude by itself can barely moisten the topsoil and can, by no stretch of imagination, cause floods/inundation. If the case of the Complainants was that the damage was caused by heavy rainfall in a few days immediately before or after 21.09.2006, they had the option to produce the requisite rain data in evidence before the State Commission. The attempt to rely upon the affidavit of the driver can be no substitute for the rainfall data. This lapse on the part of the Complainants, gets compounded by their action to destroy the evidence by getting the damage goods thrown away, as observed in the impugned order. In the above background, we are in full agreement with the decision of the State Commission to reject the complaints for being without substance. The three appeals are therefore, dismissed with no orders as to costs.