Decided on August 06,2020

M/S. Perfectpac Ltd Appellant


PREM NARAIN, J. - (1.) This consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant M/s. Perfectpac Ltd. against the opposite party United India Insurance Company Limited and two others.
(2.) The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant company got its stock, machinery etc. insured for the period 29.3.2012 to 28.3.2013 wherein the sum insured was Rs.7 Crores and 2nd insurance for plant and machinery, furniture/fixture, electrical fitting, etc. for the period 11.4.2012 to 10.4.2013 wherein sum insured was Rs.17,65,00,000/- from OP1. On 23.9.2012 fire broke out in the company's premises. After informing about the same to OP 1 and 3, complainant filed the claim form with detailed loss to OP1 and claimed amount of Rs.1,25,47,506/-. Complainant had taken separate policy towards building but OPs treated and assessed both the claims together. It has been alleged that the surveyor appointed has made a mistake by not considering the amount of Rs.6,51,800/- towards electricity consumed and Rs.4,500/- towards removal of debris and even made illegal deductions without any valid grounds. After 2 years OPs sent a discharge voucher for a very less amount of Rs.35,77,007/- which complainant was ready to accept subject to their right to claim the amount as filed in the claim form but OPs did not give a positive response. The main grievance in the complaint filed by the complainant is that the OP-1 has not included reinstatement value clause in the policy and therefore, the assessment has not been done by the surveyor on the basis of reinstatement value clause. Complainant has prayed in the complaint to direct OPs to pay the sum of Rs.65,69,569/- for one policy and Rs.59,77,937/- for the other, total amounting to Rs.1,25,47,506/- along with 18% interest, Rs.20 lakh as compensation and Rs.1 lakh towards cost.
(3.) The complaint has been resisted by the OP1 by filing the written statement. OP1, in its reply has stated that depreciation has been considered by the surveyor on the basis of age of the plant and machinery as well as by taking other related factors into account. It has been further stated that on the basis of assessment made by the surveyor, complainant was offered a sum of Rs.35,77,007/- for settlement of their claim but the complainant had refused to accept the same. It has been further contended that to contend that reinstatement clause was the basis of the policy is absolutely frivolous and forwarding of letter by OP 3 to rectify the policy after the loss had occurred is of no consequence.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.