- (1.) BY way of this consumer complaint, complainant made a claim for indemnification of the transit loss on the basis of marine insurance policy taken from O.P. No. 1 for sum of Rs. 96,00,000 on 12.7.1996. Complainant fixed its loss and made claim for Rs. 55,37,380 as assessed and reported by the first appointed Surveyor Sh. K.K. Sudha together with interest @ 18% instead of claim settled at Rs. 12,04,965 by O.P. No. 1 on the basis of the. survey report of second time appointed Surveyor Sh. J.S. Mehta.
(2.) COMPLAINANT s transformer No. 6004153 installed at Chila Hydropower House, Chila, District Pauri, Garhwal needed repairs. The repairs were to be taken up at Jhansi by O.P. No. 2, B.H.E.L., Jhansi and for this purpose, the transformer was to be transported to Jhansi from Chila. Complainant obtained marine insurance policy of the transformer for a value of Rs. 96,00,000 vide Cover Note No. 176300 dated 12.7.1996 from O.P. No. 1, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. O.P. No. 2 had submitted estimate of repairing cost of the transformer for Rs. 34,50,000 vide their estimate No. 4553G/MS before the same was to be transported to Jhansi. On 12.7.1996, the transformer was loaded on the trailer of the complainant which started its journey from Chila for Jhansi but met with an accident on 20.7.1996 at Daurala (Meerut) and in the accident, the transformer fell down from the trailer and it was further damaged. O.P. No. 1 appointed Sh. K.K. Sudha, Surveyor and Loss Assessor and he took the photographs of the spot and damaged transformer. The transformer was thereafter sent to Jhansi by another trailer and on being received there, O.P. No. 2, B.H.E.L. submitted revised estimate of repairs of the damaged transformer for sum of Rs. 82,46,000 excluding the taxes and excise duty vide letter No. 45536/AKJ dated 14.8.1996. Complainant alleged that it paid Rs. 91,12,479 including the excise and sales tax amounting to Rs. 6,03,980 and Rs. 2,62,498 respectively to O.P. No. 2 towards repair cost of the transformer. The payment having been made, the complainant lodged claim for Rs. 96,00,000 with the O.P. No. 1 in prescribed format of marine claim form on 21.8.1996. The O.P. No. 1 is alleged to have accordingly appointed Sh. K.K. Sudha, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Jhansi to assess the loss and who finally submitted his report vide his letter No. 141 dated 20.2.1997 assessing loss at Rs. 55,37,380 and recommended the settlement of the claim at this assessed amount of loss.
(3.) COMPLAINANT alleged that O.P. No. 1 instead of settling the claim of the complainant on the basis of the said report, appointed another Surveyor Sh. J.S. Mehta after expiry of more than a year, which was not as per the rules and sustainable under the law. The claim was kept pending for more than two years despite the requests made for settling the claim at the earliest. When the claim was not settled, notice dated 30.8.1999 was served on O.P. Nos. 1 and 3. but to no result and instead Sh. J.S. Mehta initiated the action to settle the issue right from the very beginning setting aside the report of Sh. K.K. Sudha and made certain queries from the complainant and O.P. No. 2 and also "made visits to Chila and Jhansi; that Shri J.S. Mehta wanted to know the full details of the estimates prepared by O.P. No. 2, B.H.E.L. on both the occasions i.e. pre -accident and after the accident of the transformer including their margin of profit; that the points were clarified vide letter dated 23.3.1999 sent by the complainant; that O.P. No. 1 finally settled the claim for Rs. 12,04,965 and communicated the same to the complainant vide their sanction order No. nil dated 4.4.2001 and that on being asked, O.P. No. 1 furnished following details as to how the losses were assessed by it : Particulars Amount Total repairing cost including excise duty and sales tax ( ) Rs. 90,43,502.60 Less : Expenses on initial repairing ( ) Rs. 37,83,699.50 Rs. 52,59,803.10 Less : Right of recovery being pre -judiced by the insured for having carried the consignment by own carrier @ 25% of Rs. 52,59,803.10 ( ) Rs. 13,14,950.70 Rs. 39,44,852.40 Less : Value of Salvage ( ) Rs. 11,61,920.00 Rs. 27,82,932.00 Less : Cost of repair against initial repairing if accident did not occur taking into account the various activities as per Annexure -A of the estimated expenditure, quotation of B.H.E.L. but absorbed into the accidental damages @ 70% of labour expenses ( -) Rs. 15,53,517.00 Rs. 12,29,415.00 Less : Cost of worn out items not coming in the meaning of the policy i.e. 155 kgs. (approx) as per the information collected @ Rs. 163.00 per kg. ( ) Rs. 24,450.00 Rs. 12,04,965.00 Complainant urged that the deductions were not warranted as the carrier No. UAW -9976 of the complainant which met with an accident on 20.7.1996 was duly insured with the O.P. No. 4; that the deduction of 25% on Rs. 52,59,803.10 i.e. Rs. 13,14,950.70 is not tenable and sustainable under the rule vis -a -vis cover Note No. 132438 dated 15.7.1996 issued by O.P. No. 4; that the prices have been quoted after considering rebate for scrap value of all disposable materials such as copper and insulation and as such the deduction on account of salvage and worn out items is not tenable and that 70% deduction on account of labour expenses is also not tenable in view of the fact that the revised estimate covering 24 activities which they had to carry out, while doing the repairing due to the accident of the transformer in which it was damaged extensively, was submitted by O.P. No. 2, BHEL and these activities were not listed in the first estimated cost of Rs. 34,50,000 submitted by O.P. No. 2 before the accident. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No. 1 in not allowing the claim as settled by the first appointed Surveyor and, therefore, prayed that his claim be settled at R . 55,37,380 as assessed and reported by the first appointed Surveyor Sh. K.K. Sudha together with interest @18% and expenses of the litigation.;