w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Mahalaxmi Dyes & Chemicals Ltd., Mumbai v/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai

    Consumer Case No. 101 of 2009

    Decided On, 07 September 2021

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER

    For the Complainant: Mohan Babu Agarwal, Advocate. For the Opposite Parties: P.K. Seth, Advocate.



Judgment Text

1. Heard Mr. Mohan Babu Agarwal, counsel for the complainant and Mr. P.K. Seth, counsel for the opposite party.

2. Mahalaxmi Dyes & Chemicals Limited (the complainant) (hereinafter referred to as the Insured) filed the present complaint for directing New India Assurance Company Ltd. (the opposite party) (hereinafter referred to as the Insurer) to (a) that this Hon’ble Commission be pleased to direct the Opposite Party to rectify the defects in its services as insurer and to pay the Complainant’s legitimate claim towards balance amount of Rs.2,15,50,885/- together with interest @ 18% per annum on the said amount from 19thApril 2006 (i.e. six months concession as per the IRDA Guidelines) till filing of the present complaint amount to Rs.3,31,88,362/- as per the particulars of claim annexed hereto and marked Exhibit “Q” and further interest @18% on the said amount of Rs.3,31,88,362/- from the date of the complaint till realization; (b) that the Opposite Party be directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on the ground of deficiency in service and also on the ground of failure on the part of the Opposite Party to favourably consider the Complainant’s legitimate claim; (c) that the cost of Rs.50,000/- be provided for filing the present complaint; (d) for such other and further reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.3. The facts as stated in the complaint and emerged from the papers attached along with it are as follows:-

(a) Mahalaxmi Dyes & Chemicals Limited is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, in the year 2001. It was engaged in trade of chemicals, dyes, solvents, petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals and bulk drugs. The Insured used to import aforementioned goods from other countries and also purchase from Indian markets. After receiving the goods, it used to be stored in various warehouses (including Gala Nos. 8 and 11, of M/S Mahek Warehousing Company, Tulsi Compound, 4 &5, Anju Phata Road, Val Village, near Maharashtra Warehousing Company, Thana Bhiwandi Road, Bhiwandi) hired by the Insured, till its sale. The Insured had Cash Credit Facility from State Bank of India, Brach Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 and under the terms of the loan agreement, the goods stored in these warehouses had to be hypothecated with the Bank. The Insured had to supply details of the goods to the Bank in every months and the Bank used to verify the stock in warehouses.

(b) The Insured used to obtain Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy, Floater Policy, from the Insurer, since 2001, regularly for the stocks. The Insured obtained Policy No. 111106/11/05/13/00000054, Floater Policy, (hereinafter referred to as Policy-54) in respect of Stock of chemicals, dyes, solvents, petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals and bulk drugs of every description, as stored in 23 warehouses, including Gala Nos. 8 and 11, of Mahek Warehousing, which was mentioned at Serial No. 8 of the list of warehouses attached with the policy. The policy was valid for the period of 15.04.2005 to 14.04.2006 and risk coverage was of Rs.2 crores. The Insured obtained Policy No. 111106/11/05/13/00000078, Floater Policy, (hereinafter referred to as Policy-78) in respect of Stock and Stock in Progress Pertaining Insured Trade, as stored in 20 warehouses, including Gala Nos. 8 and 11, of Mahak Warehousing, which was mentioned at Serial No. 7 of the list of warehouses attached with the policy. The policy was valid from 19.04.2005 to 18.04.2006 and risk coverage was of Rs.50 lakhs.

(c) Fire broke out in Gala No. 9 of Mahek Warehousing on 08.01.2006 at about 23:00 hours. It was noticed by watchman Baba Saw, who tried to control the fire with the help of other local peoples but, it is alleged that as in Gala No. 9, combustible materials were stored as such; the fire immediately spread and took devastating condition and a blast had also happened. Baba Saw immediately informed Rajnikant Amritlal Mody, the Proprietor of Mahek Warehousing, who informed Chandrakant V. Shah, the Director of the Insured. They informed about the fire to local Fire Service Station, Water Tanker Service and Police Station. 20 Fire Tenders and 40 Water Tankers were deployed on the spot, then the fire could be controlled on 09.01.2006 at about 7:30 hours. Local police also visited the spot and prepared Panchayatnama, showing that fire was caused accidently due to short circuit and no person was responsible.

(d) The Insured gave a fax message to Divisional Office of the Insurer on 09.01.2006, about the fire incident at Mahek Warehousing and requested for survey, assessment of loss and reimbursement. The message was noticed by Divisional Office on 12.01.2006. Then Deputy General Manager appointed Mr. Navin K. Jain, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Navi Mumbai, for survey and submit a preliminary report. Mr. Navin K. Jain inspected the spot on 12.01.2006 and submitted his Preliminary Report dated 12.01.2006, stating that cause of fire and assessment of loss required detail investigation.

(e) Deputy General Manager intimated the incident of fire to Fire Technical Department of the Insurer through letter dated 12.01.2006. Deputy General Manager, through letter dated 13.01.2006 appointed Loss Prevention Association of India Ltd., Mumbai, for investigation of the root cause of the fire. The experts of Loss Prevention Association inspected the premises on 19.01.2006 along with Administrative Officer of the Insurer. After detail investigation, it has submitted an undated Report, mentioning therein that all stocks stored in Gala Nos. 7 to 10 were burnt totally and the building was also completely damaged. Possibility of ignition due to short circuit in the electrical fittings cannot be ruled out.

(f) At the time of inspection on 12.01.2006, Navin K. Jain, demanded details of the stock, stored in Gala No. 8, which was supplied to him. He demanded stock Register of the warehouse, from the Proprietor of the warehouse, in order to compare it, from the paper of the Insured but the Proprietor informed that his Register was kept in the office attached to the fire affected Galas and it was totally burnt. Mr. Navin K Jain through his letter dated 15.01.2006 demanded various paper (total 12 papers), which were supplied to him on 20.01.2006. Navin K. Jain then again inspected the spot on 25.01.2006. He by letter dated 03.02.2006 again demanded various papers, which were supplied to him. Then he again made spot inspection on 07.02.2006. Divisional Manager, through letter dated 20.01.2006, demanded some papers (total eight) from the Insured, which were supplied by the Insured on 25.01.2006. On the demand by the Insurer, the Insured gave a letter dated 19.04.2006, giving quantum of loss. Navin K. Jain visited the Branch of State of India on 27.04.2006, to examine the Stock Register of the good of the Insured as maintained by the Bank. The Bank permitted him to examine the Stock Register and also supplied certificate of stock dated 28.04.2006, in respect of stocks statement in various Galas (including Gala No. 8), as informed by the Insured to the Bank on 31.12.2005 and verified by the Bank on 02.01.2006. He demanded certificate of the Bank, regarding actual inspection of the stock in Gala No. 8, which was given by Assistant General Manager of the Bank on 21.06.2006.

(g) Navin K. Jain submitted his Final Survey Report dated 30.08.2006. He stated that when he made first inspection, then the Insured orally claimed damages for the stock of Gala Ns. 7, 8, 9 and 10 and informed the quantity of stock in these Galas. When his oral statement was reduced in writing then he refused to sign it. Subsequently he changed the figures of stock in these Galas. Stock position as informed by the Insured at different times was not tallying with details of stock as informed by Warehousing owner. It was admitted that in these Galas, stock of other parties were also stored as informed by Warehousing owner. Although Register maintained at the office of Warehousing was burnt but its copy might be available with the Insured but he has withheld it from his examination. From very beginning, he insisted the Insured and warehousing owner to open Gala No. 11, which was not damaged but Gala No. 11 was opened on 25.01.2006. Records relating inward-outward of the materials was not produced. From the records provided by the Insured, it cannot be determined as to what quantity of stock was lying in Gala No. 8 and what quantity of stock was lying in Gala No. 11. Insured informed the Excise Department on 09.01.2006 giving details of goods damaged in the fire, which is contradictory to the details supplied to him. State Bank of India, in its certificate dated 28.04.2006, did not mention that the stock of Gala No. 8 was checked item-wise on 02.01.2006. However, in letter dated 21.06.2006, he has mentioned that the stock of Gala No. 8 was checked item-wise on 02.01.2006, which is an afterthought. Physical quantum of loss, in Gata No. 8 could not be established. He assessed the loss to Rs.1,58,56,651/-. As the Insured has not given adequate documentary proof of the stock as such his claim is liable to be repudiated under Condition No. 6 of the policy.(h) On coming to know about the Final Surveyor Report, the Insured demanded its copy from the Insurer on 08.09.2006, which was supplied to him on 11.09.2006. The Insured made a detail representation dated 14.10.2006 and mentioned therein the documents (total 28 documents) supplied to the Surveyor. He has also mentioned the practice of storage of the goods in the Galas.

(i) Regional Manager himself was not satisfied with the Report dated 30.08.2006 and by his letter dated 12.09.2006, asked the Surveyor to clarify the contradictory facts, mentioned in his report. On the representation dated 14.10.2006, Regional Manager wrote another letter dated 06.11.2006 to the Surveyor to clarify the position. Then the Surveyor wrote a letter dated 21.11.2006, denying these papers being handed over to him and saying that these documents were contrary to his physical inspection.

(j) Deputy General Manager wrote a letter dated 21.03.2007 to Fire Technical Department, Head Office, Mumbai, stating therein that all the required papers were supplied to the Surveyor and his attitude was less than objective. A meeting was held in the office of Deputy General Manager, with the Insured and other officers on 16.05.2007. In this meeting, the Insured was able to convince, the officer that all the papers, which were demanded by the Surveyor, were supplied to him and his Report dated 30.06.2006 was contrary to the records. A minute was prepared in this respect prepared on 22.05.2007 and was sent to Head Office. However, Deputy General Manager, by a subsequent letter dated 18.09.2007, repudiated the claim, on the ground that the Insured had not supplied the required documents at the material time as such he had violated the Condition No. 6 of the General Condition. The Insured wrote a letter dated 16.06.2008 to review of his order, which was rejected by letter dated 24.07.2008. Hence this complaint was filed.

4. It has been stated that the Insured had provided all the papers as and when it were demanded by the Surveyor and Deputy General Manager, who was handling the survey. After receiving copy of the Report dated 30.08.2006, the Insured made a detail representation dated 14.10.2006, to Regional Manager, giving therein, the details of the documents (total 28 documents) supplied to the Surveyor. Regional Manager was satisfied that the papers were supplied by the Insured as and when it was demanded. It the meeting dated 16.05.2007, which was attended by three officers of the Insurer, all the documents of the Insured were examined and they were satisfied with the bonafide of the Insured. If the Insured had all the requisite papers with him and submitted them before Deputy General Manager and Regional Manager, then there was no reason for not supplying it to the Surveyor. If the Surveyor has no papers relating to the stock stored in Gala No. 8, then on what basis he had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,83,99,423/- and liability of the Insurer to Rs.1,58,56,651/-. It has been submitted that attitude of the Surveyor was hostile and arbitrary from very beginning as such he had prepared self-contradictory report. The Insured has also filed a Volumetric Report dated 22.10.2008 and submitted that the goods, which the Insured claimed to have destroyed, could be stored in Gala No. 8. At the time obtaining policies, in April, 2005, Gala No. 11 was also in tenancy of the Insured as such the polies were in this respect also. But it was surrendered on 01.09.2005 and Mahek Warehousing Co. let it out to one Sack Ltd. Indore on 01.09.2005. As such at the time of fire, all the goods of the Insured were in Gala No. 8, alone.

5. The Insurer contested the case and filed its written statement on 15.01.2010, in which the material facts (i) relating to the storage of the goods at the said premises, (ii) Insurance of stocks of the Insured, under Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy, Floater Policy scheme through policy No. 54, from the Insurer, for coverage of Rs.2 crores, for the stocks at 23 warehouses, for the period of 15.04.2005 to 14.04.2006 and Policy No. 78 for coverage of Rs.50 lakhs, valid from 19.04.2005 to 18.04.2006, for the stocks and stocks in process at 20 warehouses (iv) Fire incident in Mahek Warehousing on 08.01.2006 (v) appointment of Navin K Jain to conduct a survey and assess the loss and his report dated 30.08.2006, (vi) various letters written by the officers of the Insurer and meeting dated 16.5.2007 and minute dated 22.05.2007 and (vii) repudiation of the claim of the Insured through letter dated 18.09.2007, have not been denied. It has been stated that from very beginning of the incident of fire on 08.01.2006, the Insured had not come with clean hand. In fire incident dated 08.01.2006, goods stored in Gala Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 were damaged. In the letter dated 12.01.2006, the Insured informed the estimated loss as Rs. 1.80 crores. When the Surveyor visited the spot on 12.01.2006, the Insured and the owner of the warehouse orally informed that 1300 kg. Crude naphthalene, in 50 kg bags, in Gala No. 7, 29,000 kg. Camphor in 1160 cartons, in Gala No. 8, 67,775 kg Penta Erythritol (500 kg bagsx50, 20 kg bags x 20 and 25 kg bags x 1695) was stored in Gala No. 9 and 158911 kg in 6674 bags Paraffin Wax were stored in Gala No. 10. There was difference between the statements of the Insured and warehousing owner in respect of the quantities stored in the aforementioned Galas,. Although Gala No. 11 was covered in the policies of the Insured but in spite request of the Surveyor, it was not opened for his inspection on 12.01.2006, 15.01.2006 and 24.01.2006. The Surveyor demanded the papers relating to storage of goods in Gala No. 8 and 11 on 12.01.2006, which was not supplied on the pretext that head office of the Insured was at a long distance from the store and he had to go to Iran on the next day. Gala No. 11 was safe, as such, its inspection was necessary for the Surveyor to ascertain the quality of the goods stored in it. At the time of inspection on 12.01.2006, the Surveyor found that some HDPE granules belonging to other parties were safe in Gala No. 8. Simultaneously, the Insured moved a letter dated 16.01.2006, to the Divisional Manager, stating therein that he had obtained policies, for Gala Nos. 8 to 11, of Mahek Warehousing however, due to typographical error Gala Nos. 8 & 11, had been typed and it may be corrected. Divisional Manager, through letter dated 17.01.2006, informed that the alleged mistake could not be rectified. Then an entirely different figure of stock of Gala No. 8 was given, showing 1365 bags of Crude Naphthalene, 1060 cartons of Camphor, 7234 cartons of Paraffin Wax and 1810 bags of Penta Erythritol. This was an afterthought and an attempt to include the goods of other Galas, which were not covered in the policies. In spite of repeated request of the Surveyor, the Insured did not supply him, sufficient document to prove Gala-wise storage of the goods. The Surveyor in his letter dated 03.02.2006, informed the Insured that the documents submitted by him did not indicate as to in which Gala were his goods stored and demanded the papers relating to transportation of the goods to Gala No. 8, inward-outward Register and the papers relating to purchase of the goods but the documents were not supplied at that time. The claim of loss was not proved. Though the documents relating to stocks of Galas 7, 8, 9 and 10 were given but deliberately documents of Galas 8 and 11 were withheld. The Insured informed Excise Department in respect of the damages caused to his goods in the fire incident dated 08.01.2006. The Surveyor collected information from Excise Department, from where it was verified that 70175 kg Penta Erythritol and 38000 kg Paraffin wax were damaged in Gala No. 8, from which also the entire claim of the Insured was not proved. Due to aforesaid reasons, the Surveyor has reported for repudiation of the claim, which has been accepted by the competent authority by letter dated 18.09.2007. The letters of other officers were merely communication amongst themselves and no reliance can be placed on it.

6. The Insured filed his Rejoinder Reply dated 10.05.2010, in which the facts stated in the complaint were reiterated. The Insured filed documentary evidence as Exbs. A to L along with the complaint, Fire Insurance Claim Form as submitted on 24.01.2006, Index of document filed on 28.11.2018 and some documents on 21.11.2019, details of which are given in Appendix. The Insured filed an Affidavit of Evidence of Chandrakant V. Shah, Director, on 23.04.2013, his Counter Affidavit of Evidence on 18.11.2013. The Insurers filed documentary evidence Annexures-A to H, along with Written Reply which are detailed in the appendix. The Insurer filed Affidavit of Evidence of Ram Narain Chakrabarty, and Navin K. Jain, the surveyor. Both the parties have filed their written submission.

7. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. So far as the objection that complicated question of the fact is involved as such the Insured be relegated to go before Civil Court, is concerned, The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was enacted with object to provide for better protection of the interests of the consumers and for that purpose, to make provision for the establishment of consumer council and other authorities for settlement of consumer disputes and other matter connected therewith. Section 13 (4) confers same powers upon the authorities under the Act, which are vested in Civil Court under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while trying a suit in respect of (i) The summoning and enforcing the attendance of any defendant or witness and examining the witness on oath, (ii) the discovery and production of any document or other material object producible as evidence, (iii) the reception of evidence on affidavits, (iv) the requisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis or test the appropriate laboratory or from other relevant source, (v) issuing of any commission for the examination of any witness and (vi) any other matter which may be prescribed. The authorities are conferred jurisdiction to decide the issue of “unfair trade practice” which has been defined under Section 2 (r) of the Act. This definition is similar to the definition of “fraud” as given under Section 17 of Indian Contract Act, 1872. From these provisions it is clear that this Commission can hold a full trail as held by civil court or adopt summary procedure for decision of any complaint. Under the Act, although the jurisdiction of the authorities is limited to consumer complaint, but while deciding such complaint no limit has been fixed for adjudicating of the dispute. Three Judges Bench of Supreme Court inDr. J.J. Merchant Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi, (2002) 6 SCC 635,(paragraph-7) held that the object and purpose of the Act is to render simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumer with complaint against defective goods and deficient services and the benevolent piece of legislation, intended to protect a large body of consumer from exploitation. Consumer Forum is an alternate Forum, established under the Act, to discharge the function of Civil Court. Under the Act, the consumers are provided with an alternative efficacious and speedy remedy. As such the Consumer Forum is an alternative forum established under the Act to discharge the functions of Civil Court. Therefore, delay in disposal of the complaint would not be a ground for rejecting the complaint and directing the complainant to approach the Civil Court. The argument that the complicated question of fact cannot be decided by the Forum, has been specifically rejected (In paragraph-12). Similar view has been taken inAmar Jwala Paper Mills Vs. State Bank of India, (1998) 8 SCC 387, CCI Chambers Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233.

8. The counsel for the Insurer argued that the Insured had not come with clean hand. In fire incident dated 08.01.2006, goods stored in Gala Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 were damaged. In the letter dated 12.01.2006, the Insured informed the estimated loss as Rs. 1.80 crores. When the Surveyor visited the spot on 12.01.2006, the Insured and the owner of the warehouse orally informed that 1300 kg. Crude naphthalene, in 50 kg bags, in Gala No. 7, 29,000 kg. Camphor in 1160 cartons, in Gala No. 8, 67,775 kg Penta Erythritol (500 kg bagsx50, 20 kg bags x 20 and 25 kg bags x 1695) was stored in Gala No. 9 and 158911 kg in 6674 bags Paraffin Wax were stored in Gala No. 10. There was difference between the statements of the Insured and warehousing owner in respect of the quantities stored in the aforementioned Galas. Although Gala No. 11 was covered in the policies of the Insured but in spite request of the Surveyor, it was not opened for his inspection on 12.01.2006, 15.01.2006 and 24.01.2006. Simultaneously, the Insured moved a letter dated 16.01.2006, to the Divisional Manager, stating therein that he had obtained policies, for Gala Nos. 8 to 11, of Mahek Warehousing however, due to typographical error Gala Nos. 8 & 11, had been typed and it may be corrected. Divisional Manager, through letter dated 17.01.2006, informed that the alleged mistake could not be rectified. Then an entirely different figure of stock of Gala No. 8 was given, showing 1365 bags of Crude Naphthalene, 1060 cartons of Camphor, 7234 cartons of Paraffin Wax and 1810 bags of Penta Erythritol. This was an afterthought and an attempt to include the goods of other Galas, which were not covered in the policies.

I do not find that these were consideration for rejecting the claim of the Insured either in Report dated 30.08.2006 or in letter dated 18.09.2007. It is well settled that the authority cannot permitted to raise a different ground, which was not a ground of passing the impugned order. As such I am not required to go in this new issue. Supreme Court inGaloda Power and Telecommunication Ltd. Vs. United Insurance Company Ltd., (2016) 14 SCC 161,has held that the grounds other than the grounds given for repudiation of the claim cannot be permitted to be raised by the insurer in the Court.

9. The Surveyor in his report mentioned that he demanded the papers relating to storage of goods in Gala No. 8 and 11 on 12.01.2006, which was not supplied on the pretext that head office of the Insured was at a long distance from the store and he had to go to Iran on the next day. Gala No. 11 was safe, as such, its inspection was necessary for the Surveyor to ascertain the quality of the goods stored in it. At the time of inspection on 12.01.2006, the Surveyor found that some HDPE granules belonging to other parties were safe in Gala No. 8. This observation of the Surveyor is contrary to the Report of Loss Prevention Association of India Ltd., who inspected the warehouse, in presence of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Bhagat, who had inspected Gala No. 11 also. If the papers relating to loss could not be supplied in evening on 12.01.2006, then it was not very strange reason, on the basis of which adverse inference can be drawn.

10. The Insured submitted his claim on a printed proforma on 24.01.2006 (Ex-XA) before the Insured along with list of the goods, stored in Gala No. 8. The Surveyor through his letter dated 15.01.2006 (Ann-E) demanded various paper (total 12 papers), were supplied to him on 20.01.2006. Divisional Manager, who was monitoring the survey, through letter dated 20.01.2006 (EX-H) demanded some papers (total eight) from the Insured, which were supplied by the Insured on 24.01.2006 (EX-I). The Surveyor then again inspected the spot on 25.01.2006. He by letter dated 03.02.2006 (Ann-G) again demanded various papers, which were supplied to him. Then he again made spot inspection on 07.02.2006. On the demand by the Insurer, the Insured gave a letter dated 19.04.2006 (EX-J), giving quantum of loss. The Surveyor visited the Branch of State of India on 27.04.2006, to examine the Stock Register of the good of the Insured as maintained by the Bank. The Bank permitted him to examine the Stock Register and also supplied certificate of stock dated 28.04.2006 (EX.X-I) in respect of stocks statement in various Galas (including Gala No. 8), as informed by the Insured to the Bank on 31.12.2005 and verified by the Bank on 02.01.2006. He demanded certificate of the Bank, regarding actual inspection of the stock in Gala No. 8, which was given by Assistant General Manager of the Bank on 21.06.2006 (EX-XV). Supreme Court inNew India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Luxra Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 6 SCC 36(paragraph-21) has held that the stock, hypothecated with the Bank, who had first charge on it, was verified by the Bank, cannot be ignored by the Insurer.

11. The Insured made a detail representation dated 14.10.2006 (EX-Q) and mentioned therein that the documents (total 28 documents) were supplied to the Surveyor. He has also mentioned the practice of storage of the goods in the Galas. Regional Manager was not satisfied with the Report dated 30.08.2006 and by his letter dated 12.09.2006 (EX-O) asked the Surveyor to clarify the contradictory facts, mentioned in his report. Regional Manager wro

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

te another letter dated 06.11.2006 to the Surveyor to clarify the position. Then the Surveyor wrote a letter dated 21.11.2006 (EX-R) denying these papers being handed over to him and saying that these documents were contrary to his physical inspection. Deputy General Manager, himself in his letter dated 21.03.2007 (EX-T) has mentioned that the Insured has supplied overwhelming evidences in support of the claim and genuineness of these documents have not been questioned. Meeting dated 16.05.2007 (EX-S) was conducted by three officers of the Insurer, in which it was unanimously resolved that the loss was liable to be indemnified. If the papers relating to loss in Gala No. 8, were supplied to the high ranking officers of the Insurer to their complete satisfaction, then there was no reason for the Insured for not supplying these papers to the Surveyor. 12. Divisional Manger, in his letter dated 18.09.2007 (Ex-U) based his decision on General Condition No. 6 of the policy, which is quoted below:- “The insured shall also at all times at his own expenses produce procure and give to the Company all such further particulars, plans, specifications, books, vouchers, invoices duplicate or copies thereof, documents, investigation reports (internal/external), proofs and information with respect to the claim and the origin and cause of the loss and the circumstances under which the loss or damage occurred, and any matter touching the liability or the amount of the liability of the company as may be reasonable required by or on behalf of the company together with a declaration on oath or in other legal form of the truth of the claim and of any mattes connected therewith.” 13. This condition requires to produce the documents “as may be reasonably required by or on behalf of the Company”. The various officers, as mentioned above, were in permanent service of the Insurer. Time to time, they also wrote letters to the Insured demanding papers (giving particular), in proof of the loss, which were supplied to them. There was no reason for not supplying these papers to the Surveyor. The officers in their several letters found that the claim of the Insured was proved from the documents supplied by him. 14. Under Clause 9 of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policy Holder’s Interest) Regulation, 2002 interest is payable on the loss, after expiry of 6 months of the loss. In the present case, the loss occurred on 8.1.2006 as such, the Insurer is liable to pay interest w.e.f. 1.8.2006. O R D E R In view of the aforesaid discussion, both the aforementioned the complaint is allowed. The Insurer is directed to reimburse the loss amount of Rs.1,58,56,651/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 01.08.2006 till the date of its payment. The complainant is also entitled for a cost of Rs.one lakhs. The aforementioned amount be paid within two months.
O R