Order Date: Not specified
Order Name: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Jaycot Industries
Case No.: F.A. No. 1809/2017
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), led by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, has recently reviewed an appeal from United India Insurance. The commission decided that since the State Commission did not thoroughly examine the case, it should be sent back for a fresh decision. This will allow both parties to present their evidence and arguments anew.
### Brief Facts of the Case
M/S. Jaycot Industries, the complainant, had an insurance policy with United India Insurance for over 20 years, covering its unit and stock under a Standard Fire and Special Risks Policy worth Rs. 2.5 crores. A severe fire incident occurred in the factory’s packing segment, reported by a watchman, who called the fire brigade to extinguish it. The incident was also reported to the police. The company estimated the loss at Rs. 56 lakhs and informed the insurer. A surveyor appointed by the insurer estimated the loss at Rs. 54,26,299, but later substantiated a claim of Rs. 46,69,643. Despite this, the insurer rejected the claim, alleging that the company had concealed the true cause of the fire. The complainant then approached the State Commission of Telangana, which ruled in their favor, directing the insurer to pay Rs. 46,69,643 with 9% interest and a cost of Rs. 5,000.
### Insurer’s Contentions
United India Insurance challenged the State Commission’s decision, arguing that the complaint lacked legal and factual grounds. They questioned the company’s claim that the fire originated from a short circuit at a transformer, which allegedly involved about 100 feet of service cable reaching the packing area after crossing three poles. The insurer cited a letter from the Central Power Distribution Company, which indicated that the transformer was functioning well with no power disruptions, suggesting the company’s claim about the short circuit was fabricated.
### National Commission’s Observations
The NCDRC observed that the core issue was whether the insurer had provided deficient service. The surveyor’s report, which supported the complainant’s case, stated that the fire originated from a short circuit in the public transformer. However, the insurer’s report and the letter from the Central Power Distribution Company indicated that the transformer was in good condition, with no short circuit occurring. The commission noted that the State Commission did not adequately address the insurer’s evidence and incorrectly placed the burden of proof on the insurer. Therefore, the NCDRC decided that the State Commission had not considered all available material and dismissed the claim prematurely.
### Conclusion
The NCDRC set aside the State Commission’s order and remanded the case for reconsideration, with instructions for expedited handling. This decision emphasizes the importance of a thorough examination of all evidence before making a judgment.
### Takeaway
For consumers, this judgment highlights the necessity of presenting comprehensive and accurate evidence. For insurers, it reiterates the importance of meticulous investigation and transparent communication. Both parties should ensure that all relevant information is considered to achieve a fair outcome.
