ORDER
S.N. Kapoor, J. (Presiding Member)
1.This complaint relates to repudiated insurance claim of the complainant. It has been filed seeking direction to the opposite party to pay Rs. 26,28,828 for the loss caused by fire in addition to compensation of Rs. 15,00,000 with interest @ 22% on the amount of award from 23.6.1995 till realization and cost.
2. The complainant, a cement manufacturing Company purchased a Fire Policy ‘C dated 29.9.1995 from the opposite party. Insurance Co. through Divisional Manager of their Patna Division covering its fixed assets valued at Rs.l78,70,53,815.27 from 1.7.1995 till 30th June, 1995 and paid a sum of Rs. 23,84,156 as premium to the opposite party, Insurance Company. On 25.10. 1995, there was an accidental fire in the Coal Mill of the complainant’s Cement Plant Pausing extensive damage to the filter bags and venturies causing heavy financial loss to the complainant. The complainant lodged claim for a value of Rs. 26,28.828.
3. M/s. Satish Saran & Associates of Patna were appointed as final Surveyors to assess the loss. The complainant submitted all the documents relating to the insurance claim to the Surveyor on 8 12.1995 and 12.2.1996. As per the report dated 26.3.1996. of M/s. Satish Saran & Associates, the net loss was assessed at Rs. 19,45,166 and the liability of the opposite parties was assessed at Rs. 17,48,150. Despite Surveyors report, the Insurance Company failed to settle the claim. Even the letters dated 31.1.1997 and 5.3.1997 did not bring about the desired results. On 6.3.1997, a fax message about non-settlement of the claim was sent to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Insurance Company informing that on the claimed loss of Rs. 26,28,828, a sum of Rs. 8.00 lakh had accrued on account of interest till that date. Ultimately, the complainant filed the complaint and claimed Rs. 26,28,828 with 22% interest and compensation amounting to Rs. 15.00 lakh and cost.
4. The opposite party, M/s. New India Assurance Co. OP Nos. 2 and 3 are part and parcel of O.P. No. l. O.P. No. 2 being Regional Manager of Patna Region and O.P. No. 3 being Divisional Manager of the Patna Division. Opposite parties contested the matter, inter alia, on the ground that the two documents bill of Rs. 41,22,966 of Industrial Corporation dated 23.7.1994 and complaint dated 25.10.1995 allegedly made to the Fire Station Dehri-on Sone submitted by the complainant, on investigation were found forged and fabricated by Shri Chandrashekhar Prasad, Investigator. No FIR was lodged. As per Fire Brigade Station Diary, no information about any fire was received on 28.10.1995 or even near about date from the insured. Record demanded particularly relating to payments of bills of filter bags, ventunes, etc. were not produced. Since supporting documents were not made available, their use was doubted. Claim was found fake and fraudulent On receipt of the report of the investigator the Company decided to repudiate the claim after examining all the aspects of the claim and due application of mind and the decision of the Insurance Company was communicated vide their letter dated 18th July, 1997. The requisite documents were not furnished. Since the claim was found to be false and fraudulent, it was repudiated under the Policy Condition No. 8 which provides
Condition No. 8
If the claim be, in any respect fraudulent, or if any false declaration be made or used in support thereof or if any fraudulent means or devices are used by the insured or any one acting on his behalf to obtain any benefit under the policy or if the loss or damage be occasioned by the wilful act or with connivance of the insured all benefits under this policy shall be forfeited.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. There is no dispute about the insurance policy and there is also no dispute about the claim as per the proposal. The complainant claimed as below:
———————————————————
Particular of Qty- Rate Per Value of Loss Rs.
Loss Loss Unit (Rs.)
----------------------------------------------------------
Imported Filter Bags 875 2700 24,57,000.00
Venturies for Bag Filter 800 85 70,720.00
25,27,720.00
C.S.T. 4% 1,01,108.00
26,28,828.00
----------------------------------------------------------
6. A short question arises about the loss of these imported filter bags and venturies in fire on the date of the accident.
7. The Surveyors Satish Saran & Associates gave their opinion on cause of fire and Fire Brigade action as follows:
The Proximate Cause for fire
The aforesaid information indicates that the fire erupted few minutes before 11.00 p.m. at which time the Mill was running smoothly. The various parameters also were within the designed limits. Hence, the only possibility for the fire is due to a stray spark from some minute metallic particle finding its way into the pneumatic conveyor and thereafter to the bag-filter. Inside the bag-filter the stray spark ignited the fire dry coal dust laden filter bags.
The Fire Brigade action
There is no Fire Brigade near about the Factory. The nearest Fire Brigade is at Dehri-on-Sone which was informed by the Insured at 11.15 p.m. However, the Fire Brigade did not reach the Factory. A copy of the letter to the Fire Brigade is attached along with.
8. He just recommended that the a sum of Rs. 17,48.150 was liability of the insurer. Since the claim was not settled and the complainant was insisting by sending several letters. R.L Mathur, Manager of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. sent a letter dated 4.9.1996 raising certain additional queries which are as under:
1. Your assessment is based on earlier fire claim which occurred under our MCE policy during the course of commissioning on 13.2.1994. Although, the damage is of similar nature, the items effected drastically viz in this case only filter bags and venturies have got affected, whereas in case of MCE claim following items were affected filter bags, venturies, solenoid valves, filter cages, sequential timer, switch boards, double flap dust collection panels and other small equipments. We wish to know from you whether filter cages were damaged or not, keeping in view the severity of fire.
2. How did you arrive at the number of filter bags and ventures damaged in fire? Was it based on the number of filter cages affected or on the number of unaffected filter bags and venturies.
3. Please give the dimensions of filter bags and venturies.
4. You have not attached negatives of the photographs which were submitted along with the survey report. Please furnish the same.
5. As you have mentioned in your letter dated 24.7.96 that the filter bag unit was made operational with make-do arrangements, we would like to have your confirmation whether it is possible to run the filter bag unit if its 875 filter bags out of 1092 gets damaged.
This is an accidental eventuality and covered under the Policy.
9. Since the discrepancies which the Insurance Company investigated and the report that the bill which was sought to be proved by the complainant was forged one, it is relevant to reproduce the observations of the investigator. These are as follows:
In order to establish the authenticity of the bill in question. I called, on to Calcutta and proceeded as under:
(a) To start with, I called on the area Ghusuri. as per the address of the supplier appearing at the bill. With great difficulties, I arrived at the exact location but instead of any factory or show room, it appeared a very small room of a building. Landlord of the building Mr. Durga Jaiswal stated that the very concern (Om Ind Cop) has simply engaged this room at ground floor since long on the rent of Rs. 75 per month only and that too, rent is outstanding since years. In my visit too, the room found closed and locked.
(b) As per other address of the supplier. I called on next to 40, Strand Road and noted that instead of ground floor, they are and noted that the person officiating there Mr. S.K. Aggarwal is proprietor of the concern. Prior to coming on subject, I noted in discussion that they use to deal V-Belts, bearings and tools only and not at all the Article s appearing at the Bill (Filter Bags, Venturi and like thing). They have dealt with the Insured V-Belts and bearings and tools, long back.
Then I produced the Bill copy, the original of which allegedly issued by their firm. He saw the same at a glance and flatly refused to accept the same had been issued by them. In support to such version, he produced his running bill book. While going through a number of such bills. I noted as under:
(i) They are not at all in practice of putting OIC symbols at their bill number what is appearing at the bill in question. They put OM.
(ii) Signature of authorised person, on behalf of the firm at the bill in question, is quite different in style to those available at bill book and other records of the firm.
(iii) While going through a good number of exhausted Bill Book I did not find any trade of the firm related to bag filter and Venturi Apart from above fictitious figures at referred bill. I noted that address of the firm printed at each and every bill and other documents of the firm is revised one (1st floor Room No. 4th) (Of these days) and not as previous one (Ground Floor Room No. 29). Proprietor of the firm stated that they have shifted from ground floor about 5 years back and address has been changed accordingly over each and every paper much prior to the date of the very bill.
(iv) While going through a number of exhausted bills, I noted that the then bill numbers consists of three digits only whereas referred one of four figures, after OIC (instead of OM).
Lastly, I insisted to give their consent, in connection to authenticity of the bill in writing, proprietor of the firm requested me to insist in writing. I done so and he mentioned his refusing remarks over carbon copy of the same which is being enclosed herewith for the needful. They clearly state that the bill in question has not at all been issued by them. As an Independent Investigat, myself too, is under impression that the bill submitted by the Insured is fabricated on the basis of above observation.
Conclusions:
The purchase Bill which would have been submitted by the Insured against any purchase of material is false and fabricated. Statement of the Insured that Fire Brigade Office does not issue its report to private party, is false. At the same time, there is no record or even original intimation letter, regarding any fire at the concern, at the Fire Brigade Office, Dehri-on Sone.
10. The investigator has also noticed that there was no report made about the fire as per report received from Satyaguru Prasad, State Fire Officer. Patna vide Annexure ‘C at Page 23, The Regional Manager have sent a letter dated 26.6.1996, Annexure ‘F to M/s. Satish Saran & Associates and raised the following points seeking confirmation:
1. Our policy is on reinstatement value basis, why then the claim has been assessed on market value basis. More so, the time period for reinstating the equipments has not yet expired.
2. For how long the plant was shut down after this incident and when did the normal production resume. Please confirm.
3. Please furnish copies of invoices and payment particulars for purchase of filter bags and venturies.
4. We assume the plant is back in normal production and the items affected must have been reinstated. If that is so then the assessment of loss should be done on reinstatement value basis.
5. We learn from the file that the Fire Brigade at Dahri-on-Sone was immediately informed. They must have conducted inspection, please furnish their report.
11. He also put a question mark about the authority of the DM in appointing a Surveyor. He asked
The Surveyor’s deputation in this particular case falls beyond the authority of DM. Then why not the RO was taken into confidence while deputing the Surveyor.
12. A letter was sent to the Accountant also demanding certain quotations and documents. The reply sent by M/s. Satish Saran & Associates and by the complainant did not appeal in several matters to the risks and logics as would be evident from the facts mentioned hereinbelow.
13. As per affidavit of Shri Chander Shekhar Prasad, during the discussion, he noted that S.K. Aggarwal, Proprietor of Om Industrial Corporation used to deal in V-belts and bearings and tools only and not at all the Article s appearing at the bill (filter bags, venturi and like things).
14. After seeing the copy of the bill which was alleged to have been issued by his firm. S.K. Aggarwal saw it at a glance and flatly refused to accept the same that the bill was issued by his firm. In support of such version, he produced his running bill book.
15. While going through his bill, the investigator noted that-
(i) They are not at all in practice of putting OIC symbols as their bill number what is appearing at the bill in question they put OM
(ii) Signature of authorised person, on behalf of the firm at the bill in question, is quite different in style to those available at bill book and other records of the firm.
(iii) While going through a good number of exhausted bill books I did not find any trade of the firm related to Filter Bags and Venturi.
16. The complainant in support of his alleged disputed bill filed affidavit of S.K. Aggarwal. Affidavit reads as
under-
I, Sajan Kumar Aggarwal, son of Late Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal, Proprietor of Om Industrial Corporation having its City Office at 40 Strand Road, Calcutta-700 001, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as follows:
(i) That, M/s. Om Industrial Corporation is a trading firm procuring and supplying spare parts/components as per order of the buyers.
(ii) That M/s. Om Industrial Corporation have been a regular supplier of various spares and components to M/s. Kalyanpur Cements Ltd., having its cement plant at Boujari. Distt. Rohtas in State of Bihar as per their purchase orders, time-to-time
(iii) That letter No CS/S.97 dated 11th June, 1997 of Sri Chandra Shekhar Prasad addressed to the said trading firm was signed by me as a token of acknowledgement and no comments were made or written by me on the said letter of Sri Chandra Shekhar Prasad.
(iv) That the statements mentioned above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Sd/-
S.K. Aggarwal
Deponent
16.6.2000
17. This affidavit itself does not show that the alleged bill was ever issued by M/s. Om Industrial Corporation having its City Office at 40 Strand Road, Calcutta-700 001.
18. Since the affidavit. Annexure ‘B’ to the rejoinder is dated 16.6.2000 he could have stated that Om Industrial Corporation used to supply the concerned Filter Bags & Venturi though he claimed that he was regular supplier of various components to M/s. Kalyanpur Cements Ltd. Perusal of para 3 indicated that he had admitted his signatures (as token of acknowledgement) and no comments were made or written by him on the letter of Sri Chandra Shekhar yet, he had not clarified as to what he meant by stating that letter No. CS/S/97 dated 11th June, 1997 “was signed by me as a token of acknowledgement and no comments were made or written by me on the said letter of Sh. Chandra Shekhar Prasad”. It could be token of acknowledgement about his signatures or token of the acknowledgement of the fact that he had not supplied the goods of bill. Perusal of the letter Exb. CW/D at Page 119 further indicates that though the endorsement bears the seal of his firm, it appears that he has not stated vide Exhibit CW/D whether the comments had been written by him or by Chander Shekhar for what he stated in his affidavit is as vague as it was Mona Lisa smile which may be interpreted in several ways. The mysterious reason about acknowledgement could be found from the attending circumstances only. He did not even state at all that he ever dealt with Filter Bags and Venturi. The bill book did not contain any bill relating to these items. The particulars and details of payments have also not been produced. It is not possible to accept that in 24 hours or so the Article s as mentioned in the report of Shri S K Sinha would have been repaired or replaced.
19. The affidavit of Shri S.K. Aggarwal thus speaks volumes by not stating specifically that his firm has supplied filter bags and venturies. No payment had been proved by cheque or Bank draft in respect of these filter bags and venturies. The affidavit of Chandra Shekhar Prasad and his report disproved the case of the complainant that filter bags and venturies were purchased from Mr. S.K. Aggarwal. If the filter bags and venturies were not purchased from Mr. S.K. Aggarwal then one can say that the complainant has virtually relied upon forged documents. Since the entire claim depended only on these two items the entire case of the complainant falls on the ground on this ground alone, leave aside the grounds relating to other discrepancies as mentioned by Chandra Shekher Prasad with regard to the information to the Police Station. Fire Office, etc.
20. There is no doubt that in ordinary course, the Insurance Company must avoid appointing Surveyor after Surveyor and investigators but at the same time it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the complainant that the opposite party has repudiated the claim without having any justifiable reason particularly in view of what has been stated hereinabove. There was valid reason to suspect the genuineness of the claim and the bill of Rs. 41,22,966.60 which purported to have been issued by M/s. Om Industrial Corporation.
21. In the aforementioned circumstances we accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the opposite party that the purchase of the items of the bill and the payment thereof is not only doubtful but it appears to have been manipulated for raising the claim.
22. In the aforementioned circumstances we accept the contention of the Insurance Company that the complainant is not entitled to amount claimed in regard to the alleged loss suffered by the complainant in the fire on 13.2.1994.
23. In the aforementioned circumstances the complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000 to the opposite party.