ORDER (Per: Mr. C.C. Pant, Member): M/s G.B. Springs Pvt. Ltd., 22-23 KM. Chakrata Road, Chhota Rampur, Dehradun (hereinafter referred as “complainant”) has filed this consumer complaint through its Director Sh. Bipin Gupta under Section 18 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging therein deficiency in service on the part of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office 15-A, Rajpur Road, Opp. Gandhi Park, Dehradun (hereinafter referred as “opposite party”). The complainant has prayed for the following reliefs:- (a) The opposite party be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 21,79,590/- along with interest @ 18% per annum. (b) The opposite party be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- for physical and mental agony. (c) Any other relief that this Commission thinks fit to be granted under the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant is Private Limited Company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at B-17, First Floor, Dayanand Colony, Lajpat Nagar-4, New Delhi. The complainant manufactures springs for the India Railway, Defence Department and Ordnance Factories. The complainant got insured all the assets of the said factory including stock of the raw material, finished goods and other it’s related items with the opposite party for a sum of Rs. 8,30,00,000/- vide insurance policy No. 321703/11/08/11/000000346 dated 15.09.2008. On 19.02.2009, when the cooling plant was on, some anti-social elements damaged the oil pipeline of the plant, which caused the complainant a loss of Rs. 21,79,590/-. The incident was immediately reported to the Police Station, Sahaspur, Dehradun and the opposite party was also informed. The opposite party deputed a Surveyor for spot inspection. The Surveyor inspected the site on 20.02.2009 and submitted the report on 26.05.2009 and observed that the said damage to the plant was with some malafide intention. Thereafter, another Surveyor was appointed by the opposite party for the final survey and assessment of loss suffered by the complainant. The Surveyor inspected the site on 26.02.2009 in which the complainant extended full support and cooperation to him and furnished all the details and statements, as were asked by the Surveyor. Thereafter, another Surveyor was appointed by the opposite party for the final survey and assessment of loss suffered by the complainant. The Surveyor inspected the site on 26.02.2009 in which the complainant extended full support and cooperation to him and furnished all the details and statements, as were asked by the Surveyor. The complainant informed the opposite party vide its letter No. G.B.S.-NIA-2009-2010 dated 18.05.2009 that all the statements and details have been provided to the Surveyor and it also enclosed the copies thereof and also the final report of the police with regard to said incident and requested that the claim be settled expeditiously. The final Surveyor submitted his report on 20.07.2009 and on the basis of this report, the opposite party repudiated the complainant’s claim on the ground that the incident had occurred due to metal failure and it does not appear that someone had damaged the pipeline. As such, the loss is not covered under the policy conditions. This led the complainant to file a consumer complaint before this Commission on 10.12.2009 against the opposite party, alleging gross deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and praying for the reliefs, as stated above. 3. The opposite party filed its written statement (Paper Nos. 94 to 99) and pleaded that it has issued the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy bearing No. 321703/11/08/11/00000346 for the period from 15.09.2008 to 14.09.2009 to the complainant; that in the said policy the building, plant/machinery, accessories, stock of raw material in process, finished products and goods related to trade were insured; that in the said policy building was insured for a sum of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- and plant and machinery was insured for a sum of Rs. 3,50,00,000/- and stock of raw material in process and finished products was insured for a sum of Rs. 3,50,00,000/-; that on receipt of the intimation of the incident, the opposite party had appointed Sh. Preetesh Joshi as spot Surveyor; that thereafter the opposite party had appointed S.K. Agarwal & Company for the assessment of loss, who had submitted their report to the opposite party – insurance company on 20.07.2009, wherein they have assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. Preetesh Joshi as spot Surveyor; that thereafter the opposite party had appointed S.K. Agarwal & Company for the assessment of loss, who had submitted their report to the opposite party – insurance company on 20.07.2009, wherein they have assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 6,35,589/-; that S.K. Agarwal & Company in Clause No. 9.05 (Para No. 36 of the written statement of the opposite party) of their report have stated that the site inspection showed the damages only in the elbow. The short pipe length attached to the elbow was to facilitate the fitting of elbow in the piping system. The pattern of the breakage in the elbow was not result of an external force, but was of metal failure due to abnormal vibrations. As a result of the vibrations, the cast iron elbow got cracked and the quenching oil started spilling and leaking from there and the site of pipe installation did not show any sign of force and they have reported that the said incident was an accidental loss and they did not find any possibility of deliberate act by anyone to cause such damage to the elbow; that the said act was a result of an accident, rather than deliberate of someone holding any malice against the complainant–company; that the opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant–company and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. 4. The complainant has adduced the following evidence in the form of affidavit in support of its allegations made against the opposite party:- 4 (1) Affidavit of Sh. Bipin Gupta, Director of the Company dated 18.01.2011 (Paper Nos. 103 to 112) (2) Affidavit of Sh. H.N. Jha, Production Manager in the Company dated 18.01.2011 (Paper Nos. 113 to114) 5. The opposite party has led the following evidence in support of its defence:- (1) Affidavit of Sh. Ruchir Pant, Divisional manager of the opposite party dated 20.09.2011 along with annexures (Paper Nos. 118 to 135) (2) Affidavit of Sh. Ruchir Pant, Divisional manager of the opposite party dated 20.09.2011 (Paper Nos. 136 to 137) 6. The complainant has also filed the rejoinder affidavit of Sh. Bipin Gupta, Director of the company (Paper Nos. 163 to 164) along with the annexures (Paper Nos. 165 to 167). 7. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted the written arguments which are at Paper Nos. 169 to 171. 136 to 137) 6. The complainant has also filed the rejoinder affidavit of Sh. Bipin Gupta, Director of the company (Paper Nos. 163 to 164) along with the annexures (Paper Nos. 165 to 167). 7. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted the written arguments which are at Paper Nos. 169 to 171. The learned counsel for the opposite party has also submitted the written arguments which are at Paper Nos. 172 to 176. The learned counsel for the parties also placed their oral submissions. We heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 8. The complainant has alleged that on 19.02.2009, when the cooling plant was on, some anti-social elements damaged the oil pipeline of the plant, which caused the complainant a loss of Rs. 21,79,590/- and the said incident was immediately reported to the opposite party – insurance company and they deputed the spot Surveyor Sh. Preetesh Joshi and thereafter S.K. Agarwal & Company was appointed as final Surveyor for assessment of loss. However, the opposite party – insurance company did not settle the claim of the complainant and repudiated the same on the false and frivolous ground that the said act was a result of accident. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that there is a gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not settling the legitimate and genuine claim of the complainant. 9. The learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and it has never been negligent. Learned counsel further submitted that the S.K. Agarwal & Company have specifically mentioned in their report that that the site inspection showed the damages only in the elbow. The short pipe length attached to the elbow was to facilitate the fitting of elbow in the piping system. The pattern of the breakage in the elbow was not result of an external force, but was of metal failure due to abnormal vibrations. The short pipe length attached to the elbow was to facilitate the fitting of elbow in the piping system. The pattern of the breakage in the elbow was not result of an external force, but was of metal failure due to abnormal vibrations. As a result of the vibrations, the cast iron elbow got cracked and the quenching oil started spilling and leaking from there and the site of pipe installation did not show any sign of force and they have reported that the said incident was an accidental loss and they did not find any possibility of deliberate act by anyone to cause such damage to the elbow; that the said act was a result of an accident, rather than deliberate of someone holding any malice against the complainant–company and the opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant–company relying upon the surveyor’s report, which is a detailed and exhaustive one and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and, as such the opposite party has no liability to indemnify the complainant. 10. We considered the respective submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. In our view, the evidence adduced by the learned counsel for the complainant has force and it support the case of the complainant because the final report (Paper Nos. 166 to 167) submitted by the police states that:- ßegksn; vc rd dh tkap ls ;g rF; çdk’k esa vk;k fd IykUV dk dwfyax ikbi djhc 5 o”kks± ls mlh n’kk esa fLFkj Fkk ftldk lkekU; ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fxjuk lEHko ugha Fkk mDr ikbi dks QSDVªh ds gh fdlh deZpkjh }kjk tkucw>dj {kfr igqapkus dh fu;r ls ;g ÑR; dkfjr fd;k x;kA tks dwfyax ikbi vKkr O;fDr }kjk tkucw>dj dEiuh çcU/ku dks {kfr igaqpkus dh fu;r ls {kfrxzLr fd;k x;k QyLo:i dEiuh çcU/ku dks Hkkjh /ku gkfu gqbZ gSAÞ 11. Besides the final report submitted by the police, the spot Surveyor Sh. Preetesh Joshi has also observed in his report dated 26.05.2009 (Paper Nos. 64 to 65) that:- “The loss has definitely taken place on the said day & time and in my opinion it seems to be a clear case of malicious damage and any connivance or mis-representation on the part of the insured is ruled out.” 12. The learned counsel for the opposite party submitted the counter argument that the spot Surveyor Sh. The learned counsel for the opposite party submitted the counter argument that the spot Surveyor Sh. Preetesh Joshi has also stated that:- “The oil tank was empty and all the pipes outside the shed were lying on the ground uprooted and only one pipe had broken from the elbow joint.” 13. Therefore, the observations made by the final Surveyor that it was not an act of damage by the company’s staff, cannot be relied upon and there is clear-cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not settling the claim of the complainant and repudiating the same on the ground that the said act was a result of the accident. The said incident was not a result of accident and the claim was covered under the policy and the insurance company – opposite party was liable to indemnify the loss occasioned to the complainant. 14. That so far as the quantum of loss is concerned, the complainant has stated that it has suffered the loss of Rs. 21,79,590/-. However, the complainant has not filed any evidence to show that it has suffered the loss of Rs. 21,79,590/-. The S.K. Agarwal & Company in their report dated 20.07.2009 have assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 6,35,589/-. It is a settled law that in insurance matters, the report of the statutory Surveyor is an important piece of evidence and the same cannot be ignored or brushed aside without any logical reason. Hence, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 6,35,589/- along with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the consumer complaint, i.e. 10.12.2009, till actual payment and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation. Accordingly, this consumer complaint deserves to be partly allowed. 15. Accordingly, the consumer complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs. 6,35,589/- along with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation.