No basis or reasons were given as to why original claim was number settled at 75 of loss as determined by the Surveyor which was number disputed.
It was also alleged that Insurance Company did number decide despite the insured companyplainant companytinued to incur losses of interest on the outstandings of Allahabad Bank and the West Bengal Financial Corporation.
In that shed two Thermic Fluid Heaters, one oil fired boiler and one water softening plant were also installed.
It was alleged that in 1992 the bankers were changed by the Complainant from Grindlays Bank, Chowringhee Branch, Calcutta to Allahabad Bank, Camac Street Branch, Calcutta and all the fixed assets were mortgaged by the Complainant in favour of the West Bengal Financial Corporation to secure the loans received by the Complainant No.
In the said policies the banker of the claimant was also one of the beneficiaries.
At the material time, all these plants and machinery and materials were companyered by the two fire insurance policies.
3,890/ respectively which was paid by the Complainant.
The Surveyors visited the premises and companyducted an inspection.
All the fixed assets, stocks and stocks in process of the Complainant remained insured with the New India Assurance Co. upto 19th/20th March, 1992.
The part of the operation which was carried on inside the shed were the less hazardous process like clay treatment and neutralization, filtration and centrifugation, oil blending etc.
The finished product i.e. refined lubricating oil was either being loaded into oil tankers or being filled in drums.
20,23,899/ which was number even 50 of the loss assessed by the Surveyors.
Therefore, the Surveyors only assessed the losses inside the companyered area.
Ltd. is a factory measuring 251x 150 and is bounded by 7 high brick wall on South and Chain link fencing on the North, East and West Sides.
Regarding assessment of furniture, fixture and fittings though you mentioned that the surveyor assessed Rs.
204 of 1994.
19,95,432.75 and Rs.9,242.28 respectively i.e. Rs.
1 being Rs.
But after the change of the bankers from Grindlays Bank to Allahabad Bank the Complainant also changed their insurer from the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. to National Insurance Co. Ltd It is also pointed out that the Development Officer of the National Insurance Co. Ltd. one Mr. Sandip Guha brought two proposal forms for fire insurance on or about 17th March, 1992 and got those signed by the Complainant in blank.
The companyplainant claimed a sum of Rs.
K. MATHUR, J. Both the appeals arise against the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
The Insurance Company after that took the decision and informed the claimant vide their letter dated 1.7.94 for approval of the claim for Rs.
In the said policies the location of the property was mentioned as factory cum godown and office premises, though there was numbergodown in the factory premises.
The premium which was demanded by the Opposite Party No.
101600/3101669/0 in respect of Building, machinery and accessories and furniture and other companytents and the other bearing No.
Since there was some discrepancies in the survey report, the Insurance Company vide their letter dated December 14, 1993 sought clarification from the surveyors which was replied on 22.4.94 by the Surveyors.
12,012/ and Rs.
The raw material for the process was the burnt and used lubricating oil which was received in barrels and stored in the open yard.
The companyplainant was informed by the surveyors that they had been instructed by the opposite parties number to assess loss to the plant and machinery, furniture, fixtures and fittings and civil structure outside the companyered shed and building and all that plant and machinery which were lying installed in the open part of the factory premises were number allowed to be companyered by the insurance.
The companyplainant supplied all information sought by the surveyors.
The Surveyors assessed the loss at Rs.
20,04,675/ after deduction therefrom a sum of Rs.
One Civil Appeal No.
20,23,899/ under both the polices.
It was also observed that dilatory approach adopted by Insurance Company resulted in harassment to companyplainant and he had to suffer additional interest liability from time to time by the financial institutions and it was also observed that the assessee is entitled to 75 of the claim assessed by the surveyors i.e. 75 of Rs.
19,224/ as penal premium being the difference of premium between Class I and Class II companystruction for three years and two vouchers for signatures of the Complainant with the direction to send further cheque for a sum of Rs 4239/ , which was also paid.
It is alleged that release of part payment on account of payment of atleast 75 of whatever had been assessed by the Surveyors was also number released.
The said two policies were of dated 19th and 20th March, 1992.
68,500/ was related to the portion kept outside the building.
It was also urged that regarding queries of the Complainant, a letter dated 12th August, 1994 was sent giving details to the companyplainant, which was received by the companyplainant on 31st August, 1994.
Attached to the South side of the shed was a lean to structure measuring about 85 x 25 and companystructed of brick walls and roofing on tubular frame.
The companyplainant demanded the details of deduction from its claim and received a statement of accounts but numberreasons were given for this deduction.
The companystruction was divided into several rooms housing the office, quality companytrol laboratory, workshop cum rest room and store room for tools and equipment.
The insurance companypany appointed one Shri N.M. Consultants as the Surveyors.
Inside the factory premises the Complainant had a shed measuring 101 x 41 companystructed of brick wall with asbestos sheets louvers at upper and asbestos sheets roofing on tubular frame structure.
But numberresponse was received from the Insurance Company.
Since both the appeals raise companymon question of law and arise out of the same order, they are disposed of by the companymon order.
Brief facts of the case are as under That the Original Petition was filed by the Complainant M s Polymat India Pvt.
48,73,095.75, which companyes to Rs.
Ltd. and the other Civil Appeal No.
Apart from that, oil was also brought in and unloaded into used oil pits.
With A. No.
In this background.,
dated November 5, 1993 which was received by the appellant on November 9, 1993.
Thereafter on 13th January 1993 the said factory premises and the entire building, furniture, fixtures and fittings, stocks in process and other material lying outside factory shed were companypletely destroyed in fire.
In the said factory a Dove tail batch type acid and clay treatment process for refining the used burnt lubricating oil was undertaken.
6063/1999 National Insurance Co.Ltd. Versus Polymat India P. Ltd. Anr.
4366/1999 is filed by the Polymat India Pvt.
These rooms had their opening inside the shed.
It was alleged that these two vouchers were signed by the companyplainant without prejudice to its claim for the balance and returned to the insurer Opposite Parties.
as a companysequence of its claim under 2 fire policies bearing No.
The Surveyors were also informed that they were supposed to assess the loss inside the companyered area only.
Ltd. Anr.
The companyplainant from the very beginning requested the Insurer to amend the policies as there was numbergodown within the precincts of the factory premises and all goods lying inside the plant and outside the plant should be insured.
101600/3101670/0 regarding stocks and used burn lubricating oil and refined oil in its factory premises companysequent upon a fire being repudiated by the Insurance Company, Opposite Party No.
against the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi on 27th May, 1999 in the Original Petition No.
It is also companytended that the companyplainant was number kept in dark about the basis of settlement.
6063/1999 is filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd. Ors.
He also took with him photocopies of the previous policies issued by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. It is further alleged that the premises of the Complainant were inspected by the said Development Officer and after inspection, the rates of premium were fixed.
Even the Surveyors report was number made available to the companyplainant despite repeated requests.
Ultimately on July, 1994, Complainant received a letter dated 1st July, 1994 claiming the two fire policies for a sum of Rs.
In the part of the plant which was in open the centrifugation, settling and decantation, dehydration, companydensation of lighter volatile impurities, acid treatment and companydensation of volatile matters were being companyducted.
Therefore, the present claim was filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
