SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2009(2) CPR 217 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
Ashok Bhan, President and B.K. Taimni, Member
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. —Appellant
versus
M/s Hotel Aristocrat (P)
Ltd. and Ors. —Respondents
First Appeal No. 129 of 2009 and First Appeal No. 223 of 2008
Decided on 14.10.2008

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant (Insurance Company):Mr. Niraj Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent (Hotel Aristocrat Pvt. Ltd):Mr. Raj Narayanan and Mr. S. Muthu Krishnan, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Report of the surveyor is an important document and cannot be viewed lightly.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 12 and 17—Complainant M/s Hotel Aristocrat (P) Ltd. took valid insurance cover for Rs. 70,00,000 covering risk to building machinery and accessories—Damage to property, equipment, carpet, furniture due to cyclone—Spot surveyor gave a preliminary survey report placing loss approximately not exceeding Rs. 10,00,000—Regular surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 8,74,222—Complaint— State Commission allowed total amount of loss assessed by surveyor amounting to Rs. 8,74,222 along with a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 50,000—Appeals thereagainst—Report of surveyor is an important document and cannot be viewed lightly—If complainant was interested in contesting report of surveyor with regard to assessment of loss/damages then he ought to have brought on record, details of estimated loss as perceived by complainant duly backed by a professional/qualified person duly backed up by affidavit of person concerned—Nothing to this effect shown by complainant—Claim for enhancement of compensation by complainant held liable to be dismissed—Plea of insurance company that State Commission erred in granting full amount of loss assessed by surveyor without really appreciating provision with regard to deduction on account of undue insurance as per terms of policy held unacceptable—No merit in contentions of Insurance Company—State Commission held to be perfectly justified in granting full amount assessed by surveyor—Order passed by State Commission not called for any interference—Appeals having no merit, dismissed. (Paras 5, 10 to 13)

       Result: Appeals dismissed.

       

ORDER

B.K. Taimni, Member— These two appeals arise from a common order passed by the State Commission, allowing the complaint in part.

2. Briefly stated the facts leading to filing the complaint were that the complainant

M/s Hotel Aristocrat (P) Ltd., Paradeep, Orissa had a valid insurance cover for a period of 12 months from 23.7.99 to 22.7.2000 for Rs.70,00,000 covering the risk to building, machinery and accessories, stock, furniture, compound wall etc. During the life of the policy, there was episode of cyclone which hit the Paradeep Port and other areas on the night of 29th-30th Oct. 1999, followed by heavy rains, causing extensive damage to the property, equipment, carpet, furniture etc. The matter was reported to the Insurer, i.e. New India Assurance Company, who deputed a spot surveyor, Engineer S. Mohd. and Associates, who after visiting the spot gave a preliminary survey report placing the loss approximately not exceeding Rs. 10,00,000. A regular surveyor and loss assessor was soon appointed by the Insurance Company. Admittedly, at the time of visit of the surveyor, he could not inspect the damaged items as they had been re-arranged for normal activities of the hotel, and thus relying upon the damage report prepared by the preliminary surveyor, he assessed the loss at Rs. 8,74,222. The insurers relying upon the conditions of the policy for ‘under insurance’, as offer of Rs. 2,77,296 was made, whereas according to the complainant M/s. Hotel Aristocrat Pvt. Ltd. the damage was to the extent of Rs. 52,78,490. It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record allowed the total amount of loss assessed by the surveyor amounting to Rs. 8,74,222 along with a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 50,000. All the amount was to be paid by 29.2.2008 failing which it was to carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order. Aggrieved/dissatisfied with the relief granted by the State Commission, both the parties have filed two separate appeals before us.

3. We heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.

First Appeal No. 223 of 2008

4. The case of the appellant/complainant is for enhancement of compensation amounting to Rs. 52,78,490 together with interest @ 24% p.a. and Rs. 15,00,000 for harassment and mental agony.

5. We like to observe, that in catena of judgments, this Commission as also the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held, that the report of the surveyor is an important document and cannot be viewed lightly. The State Commission has relied upon the report of the surveyor Mr. Sarat Chand Senapati, who had given complete reasoning and details outlining the basis and rationale on which he assessed the loss, whereas we see on record a claim of Rs. 52,78,490 (page 46-50 of the paper-book) but we see that these details are not backed up by any report of estimates prepared by a Civil Engineer or a Chartered Engineer and secondly, we also see that no grounds have been given by the appellant/complainant to differ with the loss assessment made by the surveyor. In view of the provision of Section 64 UM of the Insurance Act, the report of the surveyor is an important document. If the appellant/complainant was interested in contesting the report of the surveyor with regard to the contesting the report of the surveyor with regard to the assessment of loss/damages, then the complainant should have brought on record the details of estimated loss as perceived by the complainant duly backed by a professional qualified person duly backed up by affidavit of the person concerned. This is the least expected from any party (complainant in this case) who wishes to challenge the report of a licensed qualified person, which a surveyor we are not in a position to uphold the claim preferred by the appellant complainant without any supporting document, except a claim on the letterhead of Hotel Aristocrat.

6. It is also important to note










































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top