Lack Of Documentary Evidence Against Surveyor's Report, Central Delhi District Commission Dismisses Complaint Against New India Assurance Company

Brief Facts:

The Complainant availed two insurance policies for its warehouse from New India Assurance Co. (“Insurance Company”). During the subsistence of the policies, a burglary occurred at the warehouse, which resulted in the theft of a significant quantity of processed pulses ready for sale. The Complainant's employee reported the incident to the police, and the Complainant subsequently informed the Insurance Company's office. The Insurance Company's surveyor inspected the site, and the Complainant provided all necessary documents and explanations. Initially, a claim of Rs. 3,62,705/- was submitted, based on the unprocessed pulses/material and their average purchase price. However, after a detailed valuation considering the processed pulses' sale price, a revised claim of Rs. 4,60,440/- was submitted by the Complainant. Despite providing all requisite documents promptly and pursuing the settlement, the Complainant's claim was not settled. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission-VIII, Central Delhi (“District Commission”) against the Insurance Company.

The Insurance Company contended that the complaint involved complex factual and legal questions requiring oral and documentary evidence through examination and cross-examination of witnesses, which is more appropriate for a civil court. The Insurance Company acknowledged the theft and offered a total claim of Rs. 1,34,520/- based on the surveyor's report. This amount was approved, and the Complainant was asked to provide a letter of subrogation and power of attorney on a prescribed non-judicial stamp paper. Instead of complying, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission noted that the Insurance Company failed to specify which material aspects of the case were so complicated that they necessitated exclusive determination by a civil court. It held that the Insurance Company could not demonstrate why the dispute could not be resolved by the District Commission.

Further, the District Commission held that the Complainant failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate the claimed quantity and rates of the pulses/goods. Conversely, the Insurance Company provided a surveyor's report detailing the items, their respective quantities, weights, and rates which led to a calculated claim amount of Rs. 1,34,520/-. It noted that the Complainant did not present evidence to counter the surveyor's report, which contained detailed facts and figures regarding the quantity, weight, and rates of the stolen goods. Although the Complainant initially lodged a claim for Rs. 3,62,705/-, later revised to Rs. 4,60,440/- based on the selling price of the products, these amounts were not supported by documentary evidence.

Therefore, the District Commission held that while the Complainant's claim for Rs. 4,60,440/- was unproven, the Insurance Company established a justified settlement amount of Rs. 1,34,520/-. The District Commission found no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the Insurance Company, and therefore, the Complainant's requests for additional compensation and litigation costs were denied. Consequently, the Insurance Company was directed to pay the settled claim amount of Rs. 1,34,520/- to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of the order.

Case Title: Shri Vasu Product P. Ltd. vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Case Number: CC/351/2016

Dated of Pronouncement: 4th June 2024