Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/137/2014

Padmavathi Motors, Proprietrix, Dr. S. Suganya - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr. - Opp.Party(s)

A. Selvarangam,

10 Nov 2022

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

BEFORE       Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH         PRESIDENT

                   Thiru R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                MEMBER

 

CC.NO. 137/2014

 DATED THIS THE  10^th DAY OF  NOVEMBER 2022

Ms. Padmavathi Motors

Poprietrix Dr.S.Suganya M.D.S.,

No.14, GST Road, Pallavaram

Chennai – 600 043                                                               ....Complainant

 

                                                  Vs 

 

1.       The Managing Director

Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Unit No.401, 4^th Floor, Sangam Complex

127, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E)

Mumbai – 400 059

 

2.       The Zonal Manager 

Zonal Office

Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

102, Door No.New:44, Old:39, Halls Road

Egmore, Chennai – 600 008                                       ....Opposite parties

 

Counsel for complainant                               :  M/s  A.Selvarangam

Counsel for opposite parties                          :  M/s. R. Ravichandran

 

                This complaint coming before us for hearing finally today  and on hearing the arguments of counsel appearing for complainant and upon perusing the material records this Commission made the following order in the open court:

ORDER

Justice R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT  (Open court)   

1.       This complaint has been filed under Sec.17 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the opposite parties claiming a sum of Rs.94,00,000/-   alongwtih interest @ 18% p.a., from the date of accident alongwith compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony and cost.

2.       The averments in the complaint reads as follows:

           The complainant is doing multi brand two wheeler business under the name and style of M/s. Padmavathi Motors at  No.14, GST Road, Pallavaram, Chennai-43.  The business was being carried out in a highly decorated showroom with all modern facilities.  There was an extensive internal decoration with costly wooden panels, with electrical and electronic equipments, roofings, false ceiling, fixtures and furniture etc.  The complainant had availed working capital of Rs.99 lakhs on 29.6.2013 under the Easy Trade Financial Scheme from M/s. Indian Overseas Bank.  At the time of sanctioning the loan, the bank instructed the complainant to take a comprehensive fire policy covering the risks of a) Fire, b) Earthquate, c) Burglary and d) Office Package, from the opposite party, in which IOB is one of the major promoter. 

          The complainant proposed a comprehensive fire policy covering the entire stocks in trade alongwith building and its contents and various internal showroom decorations, electronic equipment, electrical wiring, internal wooden panels, roofing, false ceilings and everything inside the building.  The policy was taken by the bank and the sum assured is Rs.160 lakhs.  While so on 25.9.2013, a massive fire accident took place in the showroom, totally damaging the entire stocks in trade, building & its contents, various internal air-conditioned showroom’s decorations, electronic equipments, electrical wiring, internal costly wooden panels, false ceilings and everything inside the building.  The complainant immediately informed the insurer and the banker about the fire accident,   the fire station personnels and police were informed immediately about the fire accident.  The fire station people   came to the spot and after nearly fighting for three hours, the fire was brought under control and got extinguished.  Thereafter, on receipt of intimation by the complainant, the insurer appointed M/s. Rank Associates as surveyor, who visited the showroom and confirmed the total damages caused by the fire.  The Fire Service and Rescue Department, Chennai-South had issued a certificate, which confirms the total loss.  On 28.9.2013 & 30.9.2013, the complainant had submitted the duly filled in Fire Insurance Claim Form & Consequential Loss Claim Form to the insurer, claiming as follows:

          a)       Fire Insurance Claim form            Rs.1,25,85,503.00

          b)       Consequential Loss claim form     Rs.   14,40,000/-

          (From 25.9.2013 to 24.12.2013) Total  Rs.1,40,25,503/-

 

The complainant had also submitted the necessary documents in support of the claim.  Merely after 3 months, the insurance company raised so many queries, which are irrelevant in settling the claim.  Therefore, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  The bank had also taken a serious view against the negative attitude of the insurer, in settling the claim and convened a meeting at the premises of the bank on 23.1.2014, and unanimously decided to give compensation immediately towards the damages caused to the stock in the ground floor and the other issues relating to the coverage of the policy and damages of the vehicles in the first floor after sometime.  But till date, the opposite parties have not come forward to settle the claim.  The delay in settling the claim caused great hardship to the complainant financially.  Therefore, the complainant issued a legal notice dt.14.4.2014.  But even after issuance of legal notice, there was no response from the opposite parties.  Hence the complaint is filed by the complainant, claiming the relief as stated supra. 

 

3.       The version of the opposite parties in brief is as follows:

          The complainant has availed business shield policy with the opposite parties only in respect of stock.  The building and the contents therein of the complainant are not covered under the policy.  Further the policy only covers the loss caused to the insured stock by fire and other incidental damages are not covered.  Hence the claim of the complainant for consequential losses/loss of market is per se not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.  The complainant had not substantiated that the total loss had been caused to insured stock by fire, through proper documents as claimed by her.  The complainant has availed the Business Shield Policy No.2960/53434827/00/000 for the period from 31.8.2013 to 30.8.2014 covering the stock in trade of the complainant, more specifically stated in Annexure-A of the Policy Schedule, as against damages caused to the insured stock by fire for a sum insured of Rs.75,00,000/-.  The policy was issued under the terms and conditions stipulated therein.  In this case, the complainant made a claim with the opposite parties in respect of fire accident caused to the insured stock on 25.9.2013.  On receipt of the claim, the opposite parties have appointed M/s. Rank Associates as surveyors to assess the loss on the very same date i.e., 25.9.2013, to quantify the damage, if any caused to the insured stock.  Accordingly, the surveyors assessed and submitted the report dt.28.6.2014 as to the damages caused to the insured stock in trade.  The surveyor had also clearly stated that the complainant has rendered a total non-cooperation in assessing the loss caused to the insured stock and has not proved the total loss claimed by her through proper documents.  The surveyor has clearly stated that the complainant’s premises wherein the insured stock in trade was kept is a Motor Vehicle Show Room, constructed with ground and first floor.  In the ground out of 20 vehicles kept in display, one Registered second hand vehicle was badly burnt, which needs to be considered as a total loss.  One new vehicle stored near the staircase in the ground floor was found with minor soot and no heat damage was observed.  In the first floor out of 35 vehicles, one new vehicle was damaged. 

          The insured claim is for all 56 vehicle, whereas the policy covers only stock in trade and the insured claim for anything other than stock in trade is not payable under the policy.  As per physical verification of surveyor, 20 vehicles in the ground floor and one vehicle in the first floor were extensively damaged beyond repairs.  For the other 35 vehicles in the first floor very mild deposition of soot was observed that required only water wash / air jetting, which is accepted by the complainant also. 

          Inspite of repeated requests by the surveyor for the production of some documents, the complainant utterly failed to cooperate. The non-cooperative attitude of the complainant is a violation of policy condition No.6.  Based on the assessment of the surveyor, gross assessed loss works out to Rs.8,45,346/-, after adjusting salvage and policy excess, the net computed loss arrived at Rs.6,65,328/-.  The policy covers only stock in trade and claim by the insured for consequential losses is not payable by the insurer.  The complainants claim for Rs.1,40,25,503/- is not at all maintainable.  The complainant is therefore liable to be dismissed, since the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service.

 

4.       In support of their contentions, alongwith proof affidavits, the complainant has filed 13 documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A13 and 6 documents filed by the opposite parties are marked as Ex.B1 to B6.  Written arguments have been filed by both parties. 

 

5.       Keeping the submissions in mind, we have carefully gone through the records. 

 

6.       It is the case of the complainant that the policy taken by them covers the stock in trade, alongwith the building and it covers various internal showroom decorations, electrical wiring, electronic equipments, etc., everything inside the building.  Hence the complainant has made a claim in respect of the loss occurred due to fire accident, by estimating the loss at Rs.1,40,25,503/- by duly filling up the fire insurance form and claim form. 

          It is the defence of the opposite parties that the policy covers only stock in trade as against fire and other allied perils.  As per Ex.B2 Surveyor Report, the surveyor had assessed the loss at Rs.6,65,328/- as against the claim of the complainant at Rs.1,40,25,503/-. The policy only covers the loss caused to the insured stock by fire and other incidental damages are not covered.  Hence the claim of the complainant for consequential losses/loss of market is per se not maintainable.  Therefore, based on the assessment of the surveyor, gross assessed loss works out to Rs.8,45,346/-, after adjusting salvage and policy excess, the net computed loss was arrived at Rs.6,65,328/-. 

7.       The surveyor had assessed the loss as follows:

          a)         Total No. Of 19 new vehicles in the ground floor has been considered as total loss.

            b)        1 No. Of Registered (Second hand vehicle) has been assessed on the basis of claimed amount.

            c)         For the one new vehicle at the rear portion of the ground floor near the staircase in second room, not damaged water washing has been considered

            d)        With regard to 1 No. New vehicle in the first floor, which sustained only soot/ smoke deposition, water washing has been considered.

            e)         With regard to other 34 Nos. Of vehicle in the first floor which sustained only soot/ smoke deposition, water washing has been considered.

            f)         In the absence of additional documentary proof/ records the assessment has been made on “best judgement” basis without prejudice.

            g)         Thus based on the above assessment gross assessed loss worksout to Rs.8,45,346/-.  After adjusting towards salvage and policy excess, the net computed loss is arrived at Rs.665328/- respectively. 

 

8.       In this connection a perusal of the policy terms and conditions Ex.B1, as per Annexure ‘A’ , in the column ‘Item Description’ it has been clearly stated as “Stock in trade”  and the insured amount mentioned as of Rs.75,00,000/-. 

          Therefore, as per the policy condition, the surveyor report had clearly narrated the loss.   Therefore the value of loss is to be estimated as per the policy condition, which has been done by the surveyor in this case. 

      Moreover, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant is not in a position to  prove that the comprehensive fire policy  was covering  the entire  stocks in trade alongwith building and its contents and various internal showroom decorations, electronic equipment, electrical wiring, internal wooden panels, roofing, false ceilings and everything inside the building.  In such a situation, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is entitled only for the amount as assessed by the surveyor. 

          On considering the substantial delay in getting the settlement the complainant is entitled for interest on the amount assessed by the surveyors @9% p.a., which shall be paid from the date of surveyor report i.e., 28.6.2014 till realisation, alongwith compensation of Rs.50000/- for mental agony and a sum of Rs.10000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

9.       In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, and the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,65,328/- alongwth interest @9% p.a., from the date of surveyor report i.e., 28.6.2014, till date of realisation, alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/-. 

          Time for compliance two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

         

           

  R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                    R SUBBIAH     

           MEMBER                                                                    PRESIDENT

 

Exhibits filed on the side of complainant

 

A1      07.09.2013  Insurance Policy issued by Ops

A2      25.09.2013  FIR copy

A3             “           Photos showing the damages caused to the showroom

A4      27.09.2013   Letter to complainant

A5      28.09.2013   Fire Insurance Claim form

A6            “            Consequential  loss claim form

A7      10.10.2013   Fire Services & Rescue Department’s Report

A8      24.10.2013   Email request by IOB to the OPs for the copy of proposal form

A9      18.11.2013   Email by complainant to insurer

A10    29.11.2013            -do-

A11    27.01.2014   IOB sent the Minutes of Meeting to the complainant

A12    14.04.2014   Legal notice to Ops

A13    31.08.2013   Copy of proposal form

 

 

Exhibits filed on the side of Opposite parties

B1                        Insurance Policy with terms and conditions

B2                         Survey Report dt.28.6.2014 with enclosures

B3      05.02.2014   Letter from Ops to IOB

B4      08.03.2014   Letter from Ops to complainant

B5      18.03.2014            -do-

B6      08.04.2014            -do-

 

 

 

  R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                             R SUBBIAH     

           MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT