SHIV TRADING CO. vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

THIS first appeal is directed against the Order dated 7th June, 1995 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh dismissing the complaint and leaving the complainant, if so advised, to approach the Civil Court for further relief.

M /s. Shiv Trading Co., was the complainant before the State Commission and appellant herein. The facts which are not in dispute may be noticed. The appellant had insured its stocks of paddy, rice, Bardana etc. with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 4th April, 1994 vide Fire Policy ''C bearing Cover Note No. 79502 for a sum of Rs. 30.00 lakhs for the period from 4th April, 1994 to 3rd April, 1995. A fire broke out on 28th of June, 1994 at about 9:30 p.m. and stocks of paddy, rice, Bardana etc. were burnt. On 29th June, 1994 the Insurance Company received the intimation from the appellant that the fire broke out in their rice sheller on 28th June, 1994 at 9.00 p.m. The complainant claimed that the loss due to the fire was to the extent of Rs, 30,09,925/- and made a claim as also informed the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company about the extent of the loss. There is no dispute to these facts. It is unnecessary to notice the other facts. The Insurance Company examined the report of the Surveyor M/s. Consolidated Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Purisons Surveyors Pvt. Limited as well as the report of the Investigator, M/s. Third Eye Detective and repudiated the claim vide letter dated 10th March, 1995. The State Commission discussed the points raised by the Insurance Company in the letter of repudiation as well as the material placed by the Insurance Company on record contained in the survey reports which are also part of record of this Commission. The State Commission came to the finding and expressed the opinion that the repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company was bonafide after due investigation which is based on material produced and it would not be proper to adjudicate upon the disputed claim of the complainant without recording elaborate evidence in detail. The State Commission also noticed the law laid down by this Commission that where after thorough investigation, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim and if that is so, it cannot be said that it is a case of deficiency in service.

WE have heard Mr. K.P. Kapur, the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Rajnish Ranjan, Counsel for the Insurance Company and have also gone through the records. It is manifest that the Insurance Company received the report of the Surveyors and thereafter deputed M/s. Third Eye Detectives to investigate the claim. M/s. Third Eye Detectives conducted the investigation and submitted their report dated 15th November, 1994 and opined that the fire was not accidental and was arranged by the appellant to cover up their loss through their false claim. There is no deficiency in service rendered by the Insurance Company if it arranges for the Surveyor and assessment of the loss and thereafter takes a decision after examining and scrutinising the reports. In this case, we find that there was material before the Insurance Company to come to the conclusion which they did by repudiating the claim based on the said reports of the Surveyors and Investigator. The Insurance Company in the letter dated 10th of March, 1995 stated the following vital points: "1. Honest efforts have not been made by you to extinguish/control the fire for reducing the damage to the property. 2. Spread of fire was not continuous and appeared to have jumped from one place to the other which was an abnormal phenomina causing doubts to the cause of fire. 3. Since inspection of the site and damaged rice revealed smell of kerosene oil, samples of certain damaged rice were collected and sealed under the signatures of Company''s Officials, Surveyors and your Partner-Mr. Deepak Gupta. Test report of one of the samples from a reputed laboratory has revealed presence of mineral oil. 4. In the claim form it was mentioned by you that the fire has been caused by short circuiting. Investigations have revealed that electric supply to your factory was disconnected on your request by Punjab State Electricity Board under Job Order No. 3913/1 dated 18.4.94. Meter reading on the job order on 18.4.94 and noted down by the Surveyor on 29.6.94 was the same and hence damage by short circuiting allaged by you is ruled out. 5. Broken rice was mixed-up with the sound stock to obtain more benefit under the policy. 6. You had also not supplied complete books of accounts to the Surveyors for assessment of the loss. In the light of the above, we conclude that claim was lodged on the Company with malafide and fraudulent intention to obtain benefit under the policy. In this reference, we wish to draw your attention to Condition No. 8 of the policy, which is reproduced here for your ready reference: If the claim be in any respect fraudulent or if any false declaration be made or used in support thereof or if any fraudulent means of devices are used by the insured or any one acting on his behalf to obtain any benefit under the policy or if the loss or damage be occasioned by the wilful act or with the connivance of the insured all benefits under this policy shall be forfeited. In view of the above, we regret to inform you that your claim is not maintainable and we, therefore, repudiate our liability under the above policy."

WE find that the repudiation by the Insurance Company is in good faith after applying its mind to the material contained in the report of the Surveyors and Investigator. We uphold the finding of the State Commission in leaving the complainant to approach the Civil Court for reliefs, if any. The appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.