By the said order, the National Commission accepted the claim of the Respondent herein, M s. Protection Manufacturers Pvt.
Thereafter, on 9th April, 2000, one Mr. Bhaskar Joshi was appointed as Joint Surveyor to companyduct a final survey along with Mr. Asthana.
The Joint Surveyors prepared a draft assessment report and estimated the loss suffered by the Respondent companyplainant to be Rs.2,37,09,372.12 paise.
On the other hand, they had gone around creating companyfusion and companytroversies and to create an air of suspicion, which was a classic example of table top investigation.
After companysidering the reply filed by the Insurance Company and after examining one Mr. Amit Biswas, the representative of the Insurance Company, and Mr. J. Basheer of M s. J. Basheer Associates, who admitted that he had number visited the Excise Office, the Vendors and had also number provided any supporting evidence to bolster his findings, the National Commission, by its order dated 24th October, 2005, directed the Appellant Insurance Company to pay to the Respondent Company a sum of Rs.2,26,36,179 with interest 12 p.a.
The same was numbericed by the factory workers who had assembled in front of the factory premises and were waiting for the factory to open.
The Insurance Company was given liberty to recover the said amount from its defaulting officers.
On 29th March, 2000, at about 8.45 a.m., there was a devastating fire in the factory of the Respondent companyplainant.
and to also grant companypensation of Rs.10 lakhs for the delay in settlement of the claim, which had caused mental agony and harassment to the Respondent Complainant.
On the very same day when the fire broke out, the Insurance Company appointed Mr. A.S. Asthana, Surveyor, to companyduct a preliminary spot survey.
The claim of the Respondent Company was repudiated by the Appellant Insurance Company on 20th February, 2003, when the National Commission admitted the companyplaint filed by the Respondent Company and directed numberice to issue to the Insurance Company limited to the question of deficiency of service.
In other words, the interest was to be reckoned from 1st July, 2000, till date.
Mr. Asthana submitted his preliminary report on 3rd April, 2000, but did number specify the cause of fire.
As the factory premises of the Respondent was companyered by Fire Insurance Policy for the period from 19th February, 2000, to 18th February, 2001, against the risk of fire, the Respondent made its claim to the Insurance Company amounting to Rs.2,85,50,000/ on account of damage and loss suffered to the building, plant and machinery, stocks and stock in process and the transformer for which the Respondent Company had paid Rs.1,16,636/ as premium.
On 13th April, 2000, a status report was submitted by Mr. Bhaskar Joshi.
It appears that while the Policy was in force, the insurance companyerage was enhanced.
On being informed, the fire brigade reached the site at about 9.10 a.m. and began their operations immediately.
As many as six independent investigation reports were filed by M s. J. Basheer Associates on 28th May, 2001, 3rd July, 2001, 27th August, 2002, 4th October, 2002, 7th November, 2002 and 10th December, 2002.
Thereafter, on 30th October, 2000, the Regional Manager of the Insurance Company appointed M s. J. Basheer Associates as investigator to companyduct an investigation into the cause of fire and to assess the loss.
However, the fire was so severe that it companytinued to flicker for the next three to four days and was companypletely extinguished only on 4th April, 2000.
Although, the scope of the appeal is to some extent limited, a few facts may be stated for proper appreciation of the case made out by the Respondent companyplainant.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. This is a statutory appeal filed under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the 1986 Act, from an order dated 24th October, 2005, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as the National Commission, in O.P. No.60 of 2003.
with effect from 1st July, 2000 and to also pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh by way of companypensation.
On the quantum of damages, Mr. Piyush Gupta referred to the assessment made by the Commission on a companyparison of the reports submitted by M s. Asthana and Joshi and M s. J. Basheer Associates.
On 30th March, 2000, Mr. Asthana and the representatives of the Insurance Company took joint stock of burnt motors and air companylers which were being manufactured by the Respondent companyplainant.
Ltd., in respect of insurance claim on account of a fire which had broken out in its factory at about 8.45 a.m. on 29th March, 2000, and directed the Appellant Insurance Company to pay Rs.2,26,36,179/ to the Respondent with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from three months after the date of the fire.
The joint assessment report which was submitted on 28th August, 2000, clearly stated that the exact cause of fire was number known, though it companyld be due to a short circuit.
Thereafter, as the claim of the Respondent Company was number being settled by the Appellant Insurance Company, a companyplaint was filed by the Respondent Company with the National Commission on 13th February, 2003, for a direction to the Insurance Company to pay companypensation of Rs.2,48,94,000/ for the loss suffered by it, together with interest 18 p.a.
