National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd

2. The respondent Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd. (for short ‘the insured’) had taken out two policies with the appellant National Insurance Company, both dated 29th August, 1990 for a period of one year which were subsequently renewed for another year. The first policy was for an amount of Rs. 4.9 lakhs to cover the risks on office building, residential quarters and canteen etc. in Calcutta. The second policy was for an amount of about Rs. 5.7 crores to cover the risks on building, machinery, finished and semi finished stocks, store, furniture, wiring and fittings etc. in its factory/works in Calcutta. The policies included damage or loss due to flood and inundation.

3. There is no dispute that on 6th August, 1992 there was heavy incessant rain in Calcutta resulting in heavy accumulation of rain water inside and around the factory/works of the insured. According to the insured, there was considerable damage to raw materials, stocks and goods, furniture etc. As a result of the damage suffered by the insured and in terms of the two policies taken out with National Insurance, claims were filed by the insured on 7th and 8th August, 1992 claiming a total amount of about Rs. 52 lakhs.

4. Pursuant to the claims having been made, National Insurance appointed N.T. Kothari & Co. as its surveyor on 24th September, 1992. The requisite survey was carried out and N.T. Kothari & Co. submitted its report on 11th November, 1993 indicating a loss of about Rs. 24 lakhs having been suffered by the insured.

5. For reasons that are not very clear, National Insurance did not accept the report and instead appointed Seascan Services (WB) Pvt. Ltd. as a surveyor to report on the loss or damage suffered by the insured. The second surveyor gave its report on 23rd November, 1994 assessing the loss or damage suffered by the insured at about Rs. 26 lakhs. By an addendum issued on 10th February, 1995 the damage or loss incurred by the insured was reduced to about Rs. 24 lakhs.

7. National Insurance did not reply to this notice and consequently, the insured filed a complaint with the National Commission under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’) claiming an amount of Rs. 52.32 lakhs along with an amount of about Rs.1.81 lakhs being the expenses incurred for the purpose of loss minimisation. Interest at 18% per annum was also claimed by the insured with effect from 6th December, 1992 that is four months after the occurrence of the flood or inundation.

8. At this stage, it may be noted that the claims made by the insured in terms of its letters dated 7th and 8th August, 1992 as well as the notice dated 22nd April, 1996 were repudiated by National Insurance much later on 22nd May, 2001 which is about five years after the complaint was filed with the National Commission.

10. The National Commission rejected all the contentions urged by National Insurance and by the impugned judgment and order the insured was awarded an amount of Rs. 21,05,803.89 with interest at 9% per annum from 11th May, 1995 that is three months after the addendum issued by Seascan Services (WB) Pvt. Ltd. (the second surveyor). Costs of Rs. 20,000/- were also awarded to the insured. In our opinion there is no error in the decision appealed against.

21. Accordingly, in our opinion no case is made out by National Insurance to interfere with the order passed by the National Commission.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1156 OF 2008

24. Having gone through the evidence on record, we find that the view taken by the National Commission is not only based on the evidence on record, but is in any event a possible view. In the absence of any material error in appreciation of the evidence, we do not think it proper to substitute the view taken by the National Commission with our view.

25. Therefore even in this appeal, National Insurance has not been able to make out a case for interference with the order passed by the National Commission.

Result

26. Both the appeals are without any merit and are accordingly dismissed.

................................................J ( MADAN B. LOKUR ) New Delhi;

.................................................J April 7, 2017 (PRAFULLA C. PANT) ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.5 SECTION XVII (For Judgment) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 3883/2007 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. Appellant(s) VERSUS HINDUSTAN SAFETY GLASS WORKS LTD. Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 1156/2008 Date : 07/04/2017 These appeals were called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur pronounced the reportable judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant.

The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.

[Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file]