ORDER
M.B. Shah, J. (President)
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 14.9.2002 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Assam, in Appeal No. 98/2000, the assured (complainant) has filed this Revision Petition. The State Commission summarily dismissed the Appeal without considering the documents which were produced on record. Hence, we are required to re-appreciate the entire evidence produced by the parties,.
2. Admittedly, there was heavy flood at the District Nagaon. The complainant was having a flour mill with godown for keeping the stock of wheat products, rice, mustard seeds, sugar, empty bags and similar other stocks. He had taken an insurance policy for a sum of Rs. 7 lakh on stock of goods. Undisputedly, the complainant has submitted a proposal form for having insurance coverage on 30.6.1993. Premium was also paid. However, for reasons best known to the officers of the Insurance Company, policy was given to the complainant only on 13.1.1994, i.e., long after the incident and that too only at the request of the complainant. This reveals how the officers of the Insurance Company are lethargic in discharge of their duties and not following the Code prescribed by the Insurance Regulatory Authority of India. It is to be stated that codification by the Regulatory Authority is only on the basis of various judgments of the Apex Court as well as the case law which was prevailing in England.
3. Apart from this aspect, after the flood, the Insurance Company appointed Surveyor who visited the spot on 4.10.1993, that is, after nearly 20 days from the date of occurrence, namely 14.9.1993. He verified the source of purchase and mentioned that it was from FSI and direct from the local open market. Books of accounts (including cash books, ledgers and stock registers) were also referred to by him and he mentioned that the same were properly maintained. Thereafter, he narrated that because of the torrential rains on 14.9.1993 at about 9.30 a.m., there was flood at Nagaon town and water stayed for 4 days inside the godown of the complainant; the drains were flooded; the road was inundated and the water level rose to a level of 15 inches from the stocks and the godown of the insured was submerged on 4.10.1993, he has counted the damaged bags and, according to him, the stock was so badly damaged that it was considered not fit for human consumption or for cattle-feed. He has also specifically mentioned that he requested the insured to inform the Medical and Health Officer, Nagaon Municipality for statutory inspection and that with the assistance of the labourers of the insured, the stock was segregated and the same was measured.
4. Thereafter, on 5.10.1993, the Health Inspector, Nagaon Municipality inspected the insured’s premises and declared that the damaged stock was not fit for human or animal consumption. The said stock, therefore, was removed and destroyed.
5. Thereafter, the Surveyor scrutinized the books of accounts and the loss was computed after taking into consideration the closing stocks as on 13.9.1993. The same was verified from the stock books. In the report, he had produced the relevant chart. Thereafter, he assessed the loss at Rs. 2,14,675 and recommended that the insured may be indemnified accordingly.
6. Despite this survey report, the Insurance Company, on the basis of the estimated loss submitted by the complainant, sought the explanation of the complainant by letter dated 24.1.1994. To that letter, the complainant immediately replied that at the initial stage, the loss was not assessed and, on assumption, estimated loss was conveyed. However, subsequently, the account books were verified and on that basis, the loss was assessed by the Surveyor. In support of his say, he had produced various documents as mentioned in letter dated 18.10.1993 and also the certificate given by the Medical and Health Officer, Urban Nagaon Municipality Board.
7. It is to be stated that before the Surveyor, the stock books and other account books were produced. Further, the certificate issued by the Medical and Health Officer, Nagaon Municipality was also produced. That certificate specifically quantifies the damaged stock.
8. It is also not disputed that the assessment made by the Surveyor is not doubted by the Insurance Company or no action is taken against the Surveyor on the alleged ground that his assessment was in any way unjustified or was due to collusion between them and the assured. In these set of circumstances, hypothetical reasons recorded by the District Forum in not believing the Surveyor’s report is unjustified. There is no reason to disbelieve the certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Nagaon. There is no reason to hold that the Surveyor had not remained present and had no segregated the damaged stock. There is no reason to disbelieve that the Surveyor asked the insured to obtain the necessary permission from the concerned officer for destruction of the damaged goods as the said damaged stock was not fit for human or cattle consumption.
9. In this view of the matter, impugned order passed by the District Forum requires to be modified. On the basis of the survey report, the loss is to be reimbursed to the complainant.
10. Hence, the Insurance Company is directed to reimburse the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,15,000 (rounded off) with interest at the rate of 12% from two months from the date of the survey report, i.e., 16.1.1994, after adjusting the amount already paid to the complainant.
11. Revision petition is allowed accordingly with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the aforesaid amount within a period of 6 weeks from today.