The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation of an Insurance Company to go as per the report of the licensed Surveyor independently appointed by the Government of India, as provided in Section 64 UM of the Insurance Act, 1938.

Both the aforesaid writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner for direction to respondent-United India Insurance Company Limited and its authorities for modifying their discharge vouchers, which were for compensation of loss to the petitioner, but were far below the First Surveyor’s Report, whereby the loss of the petitioner was assessed to the tune of much larger sums and, therefore, the amounts indicated in letter dated 18.03.2010 for the damage of road covering Chanage 00.00 KM to 10.00 KM and 10.00 KM to 17.745 KM ( respectively in the aforesaid two writ petitions), Rosera Shivajee Nagar Baheri Path in Rosera Block of the district of Samastipur, were not only against the First Surveyor’s Report, but were also in no way reasonable to meet the damages caused by the flood.

2. A further relief was claimed in both the writ petitions for directing the respondents to compensate the loss of the petitioner in view of the earlier interim Surveyor’s report, which was done in presence of the Superintending Engineer, Executive Engineer, S.D.O. and Jr. Engineer of the Central Pubic Works Department (hereinafter referred to as `the C.P.W.D.’ for the sake of brevity) and by the Company appointed Surveyor, C.P.W.D. being co-insured had already written to respondent-Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount at the higher rate.

3. In both the cases parties are same, reliefs sought for are also same and they are based on similar facts, whereas, only the works allotted and the amounts fixed for them are different in both the cases and hence both of them have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.

4. The claim of the petitioner is that two contracts for construction of two portions of the road (respectively in the aforesaid two writ cases) connecting Rosera Shivajee Nagar Baheri Path in Rosera Block in the district of Samastipur were awarded to the petitioner and work orders were issued in November, 2006. As per terms of the contracts, insurance coverages were signed between respondent-Insurance Company as insurer and the department and the petitioner as insured and the said policies of insurance were effective from 03.07.2007 to 02.04.2008 for the whole construction and one time premium was, admittedly, paid to respondent-Insurance for such coverages.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that he started the work in January, 2007 with respect to both portions of the road and the works were completed, except top layer bitumen and roller works, by 04.08.2007. It is also claimed by the petitioner that on 05.08.2007, there was heavy flood, due to which embankment of the river breached and all the works completed by the petitioner up till that date were washed away.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also averred that since the works were insured and constructed road was damaged during the period of insurance, the petitioner claimed the insured amounts for completing the works, whereafter respondent-Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor, who submitted his report assessing the damage caused by flood to the petitioner, but respondent-Insurance Company started delaying in payment of amount of damage and the petitioner was constrained to file C.W.J.C. No. 16895 of 2008, which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court on 12.08.2009 directing the respondents to settle the insured amount with the petitioner within three months. The Insurance Company filed Civil Review No. 257 of 2009 for review of the aforesaid order, but the said case was dismissed on 24.02.2010.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the respondents were irked by the petitioner’s approaching this Court and called for another report from the said Surveyor, whereafter the second surveyor’s report was submitted and its contents were exactly the same as of the first surveyor’s report without any difference regarding fact and loss, but the losses/damages were brought down from Rs.1,27,60,183.00 to Rs.17,75,648.00 and from Rs.