An insurer is bound by the assessment of its own appointed surveyor and cannot appoint successive surveyors to over-ride the preceding reports without a valid reason.

Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President— M/s. Gupta Textile Mills have preferred this complaint against their insurers on the allegation that they had taken out insurance cover vide Policy No. 110704/11/90/229-230 and Cover Note No. 34636 dated 26th of April, 1990 presumably for period of one year. It is the case that during the subsistence of the coverage, a fire broke out in the factory premises on the 30th of July, 1990. The services of the Panipat Fire Brigade were requisitioned vide Report No.61, dated the 30th of July, 1990 and the relevant police post was also informed of the occurrence vide Daily Dairy No. 20, dated 31st of July, 1990. The complainants lodged their claim on the basis of an estimated loss of Rs. 2,50,000/- and sought the appointment of a Surveyor. It is their case that during the survey proceedings they lodged a loss statement agreeing to accept a claim of Rs. 1,17,824/- vide Annexure 5, dated the 6th of August, 1990. It is the allegation, that the relevant documents were duly supplied to the Surveyor M/s. D.K. Taneja and Associates and they further used the salvage material as per the advice given by the insurers officials and their Surveyor.

2. The primal grievance projected is that whilst the complainants were awaiting the release of their claim atleast to the extent of Rs. 1,17,820/-, they received the letter Annexure 9, dated 24th of June, 1991 from the insurers suspecting the record with regard to the intake of the raw material and asking them to clarify, why such an inordinately large quantity was kept in process just three days prior to the fire, which was many times the normal goods in process earlier. Apparently, dissatisfied with the clarification given, the insurers vide Annexure 9-A, informed the complainants that their claim had been approved only for Rs. 6368/- and they were required to furnish the requisite discharge vouchers for accepting the same. Aggrieved thereby the complaint has been preferred seeking a sum of Rs. 1,17,824/- alongwith interest @ 24%.

3. In the written statement on behalf of opposite party No. 1, three preliminary objections have been raised, to which reference now becomes unnecessary. On merits the broad factual matrix of the insurance cover and the subsequent fire are not disputed. But it is in terms denied that the complainant was ever forced to accept or agree to the claim of Rs. 1,17,000/- odd. The despatch or receipt of any letter dated the 8th of August, 1990 from the complainants is also expressly controverted. Somewhat repetitively, it is reasserted that the complainants had not the least rightful claim to Rs. 1,17,000/- odd, but infect only for a marginal sum of Rs. 6368/- without in the least indicating its basis. The plea is that since there is only disagreement on the quantum of the claim, the only remedy is under the arbitration Clause 13 of the policy, to which resort should be made by the complainant. In reply to para No. 8, it is denied that the complainant was awaiting the release of the amount of Rs. 1,17,864/-. However, without indicating anything whatsoever or referring to any surveyor’s report either it is cryptically stated that the large claim submitted by the complainant was approved only for Rs. 6368/- and a discharge voucher was sent to the complainant vide communication dated 27th of November, 1991. A somewhat detailed replication had been filed reiterating the complainant’s stand.

4. In support of their case, the complainants have chosen to put in the affidavit testimony of Tikka Ram, the proprietor of the concern, apart from relying on Annexures 1 to 17 annexed to the complaint. The deponent was cross-examined on behalf of the opposite party and conceded that two surveyors had assessed the loss and further that he had not brought any record to substantiate in detail the claim that Rs. 1,17,000/- was assessed by any of the surveyor.

5. In rebuttal of the affidavit of Sh. C.S. Tandon, the Divisional Manager of the insurers was placed on