Kathmandu. The Nepal Insurance Authority (NEA) has awarded Rs 10 lakh to Sai Drinking Water Industries, which has been selling bottled drinking water, in a suit filed against it for the fire that caught fire along with the building and machinery of the factory. This is O
Sai Drinking Water Industries, which is insured by the National Insurance Company Limited, had filed an application claiming compensation for the fire that occurred in the factory building on Saturday morning, October 10, 2019. On Monday, two days after the incident, the company reported the fire and demanded a compensation of Rs 3,44,83,000 from the insurance company.
After the claim application, when the insurance company assigned a surveyor to assess the damage, the surveyor submitted a report that the water treatment and bottle-shutting machinery and warehouse of the goods were not damaged and the smoke smoke was black elsewhere due to the fire in one room of the building. The report had recommended to pay a total of Rs 10.47 lakh as compensation.
Sai Drinking Water Industries (Sai Drinking Water Industries) had filed a complaint on February 22, 2078 and knocked on the door of the Nepal Insurance Authority (NIA) to pay the claim as per the demand.
The insurance company had submitted a reply to the Insurance Authority on March 17, 2021 stating that the compensation was determined on the basis of the surveyor’s report.
As the photographs and audio-visual documents related to the extent of damage at the site were not included in the document, the court issued an order on April 27, 2008 to the NRA to submit the complete text of the survey report along with the photographs and audio-visuals to the NRA within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of the order. Yadav submitted the report and photos only on July 25, 2080 without exceeding the deadline of seven days.
On the basis of the survey report and the analysis of photos and audio-visuals confirming the incident, the NRA decided on August 11, 2080 to dismiss the compensation application.
Thus, it was held that the insured company claimed many times more compensation than the actual loss to take undue advantage even from the disaster of fire.
