Vijay Fire Protection Systems Ltd. vs DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.

THIS first appeal is against the order of the Punjab State Commission dated 29.9.1998 in Original Complaint No. 7/1998. The appellant got an order on October 15, 1990 from the Punjab State Electricity Board to erect a Fire Protection System at Ropar Thermal Power, Ropar. The value of the order is Rs. 1,15,19,087/-. For executing the work he procured materials like cables, motor compressor etc. and collected them at work site. On March 31, 1993 he took a insurance policy from the respondents for an amount of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- to cover theft etc. of the above material. The policy which initially was for the period 6.4.1993 to 5.10.1993, and the validity was got extended twice upto 24.1.1994.

ACCORDING to the appellant, a theft of cables and assorted items valued at Rs. 8,49,000/- took place on 21.9.1993 and he filed an FIR with the police on 8.7.1994 and also informed the respondent Insurance Company on 29.9.1994. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on 6.2.1997. Being aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a complaint before Punjab State Commission alleging deficiency in service and claimed reimbursement of Rs. 8,49,000/- along with interest at 18% and costs of Rs. 20,000/- The State Commission partly allowed the complaint and relying on the report of the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company ordered a payment of Rs. 3,00,605/- with interest at 12% p.a. w.e.f. a date three months from the date of report of the Surveyor. There was no order about costs. The order further mentioned that the complainant is at liberty to approach Civil Court for the remaining amount, if any.

The grounds of appeal are that the claim was based on the selling unit rate of each item as it appears in the contract placed by the Punjab State Electricity Board and that the insurance premium was also calculated on the basis of value of contract; that the respondent never informed him of an appointment of a Surveyor; that the Surveyor report has not been brought on record for the State Commission and that such a report does not exist.

ON going through the records and hearing the parties we find that there is no merit in appeal. The Surveyor''s report dated 19.1.1996 clearly shows that he had great difficulty in collecting evidence and submitting his report since he was appointed only on 17.7.1994 whereas the alleged theft took place on 21.9.1993 about 10 months before. Surveyor paid five visits to the appellant the last one being on 27.5.1995. The delay in submission of Surveyor''s report is essentially due to inaction by the appellant. We find from the readings of the Surveyor''s report that the Surveyor has been more than fair to the appellant. The Surveyor clearly explained the reasons for the inordinate delay on the part of the appellants and normally launching a claim before the respondents and also in getting the FIR registered. He further pointed out that the appellants, in fact, informed the police on the date of the theft itself. He further pointed out that the Insurance Company was informed of the details of the theft on 4.10.1993 i.e. 14 days after the theft and that the advice of the Insurance Company to await the formal registration of FIR by the police, that the appellant delayed the filing of formal claim. Surveyor''s report also clearly indicates that the valuation of loss was made on the basis of rates quoted in the contract. The report further clearly indicates that the appellant or his agents have been in regular touch of Surveyor and that a consent letter accepting the settlement of claim at Rs. 3,00,605/- was issued by the employee of the appellant. The appellant''s claim that the Surveyor''s report is not dated; it was not made available to him and that the Surveyor''s report should not have been accepted by the State Commission since Insurance Company itself did not accept the Surveyor''s report but instead they put repudiated the claim in full, have no merit. In our judgment, the order of the State Commission giving partial relief to the complainant meets the ends of justice and needs to be upheld. Accordingly, with the above discussion, we pass the following order. The appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to cost. Appeal dismissed.