Order Date: 30th July 2024
Order Name: M/s Bhupinder Tyres Works vs New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Case No.: First Appeal No. 1275 of 2014
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) recently dismissed an appeal against New India Assurance Company Ltd. The bench, led by AVM J. Rajendra, upheld the insurance company’s decision based on a surveyor’s report that assessed the loss accurately.
Key Facts:
- Business: The complainant, M/s Bhupinder Tyres Works, sold tyres, tubes, and related goods.
- Insurance Coverage: The shop had two insurance policies from New India Assurance Company. The first policy covered stocks worth Rs. 23,50,000/- and furniture and fixtures worth Rs. 1,50,000/-. The second policy covered the building, which comprised three shops. Both policies were valid from June 18, 2010, to June 17, 2011.
- Incident: On November 5, 2010, a fire broke out at the shop, causing an estimated loss of around Rs. 30 lakh. The fire was reported to the authorities, and the insurance company was informed.
Investigation and Claim:
- Surveyor Report: Shri Deepak Malhotra, appointed by the insurance company, assessed the damage and submitted his report on December 1, 2010. Another investigator, Shri KS Chandhok, confirmed that the fire resulted from an electric short circuit and caused significant damage.
- Claim Rejection: Despite repeated requests and a legal notice sent on July 18, 2011, the insurance company closed the claim as "No Claim," citing doubts about the cause of the fire.
Legal Proceedings:
- State Commission: The complainant approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab. The insurance company argued that the complaint was misleading and required extensive evidence fit for a civil court. They pointed out discrepancies in the stock statements and bank records, supporting their decision to deny the claim.
- Ruling: The State Commission partly allowed the complaint, awarding Rs. 1,79,335/- with 9% interest per annum, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation, and Rs. 11,000/- for litigation expenses. Unsatisfied, the complainant appealed to the NCDRC for higher compensation.
NCDRC Observations:
- Surveyor’s Report: The NCDRC noted that the surveyor’s report should be given due consideration unless it overlooks critical evidence or misrepresents facts. In this case, the report revealed that the complainant failed to prove that the shop was a branch office. The signboard showed different proprietors for the head office and branch office.
- Stock Assessment: The surveyor found that most stock on the lower ground floor consisted of old, discarded tyres, and without genuine purchase bills, the condition of these tyres couldn’t be verified. The physical verification indicated that only 10% of the stock was damaged.
- Conclusion: The NCDRC found the State Commission’s order detailed and well-reasoned, without any illegality or impropriety. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Takeaway:
This judgment underscores the importance of accurate and thorough documentation when filing insurance claims. Surveyor reports are crucial and will be given significant weight unless proven otherwise. Ensure that all records are clear and consistent to avoid claim rejections.
