Back
2010(4) CPR 175 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
R.K. Batta, Presiding Member and Vinay Kumar, Member
National Insurance Company —Petitioner
versus
Raja Poultry Farm —Respondent
Revision Petition No. 2655 of 2006
Decided on 22.11.2010
2006(5) SCC 258—Distinguished.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The case concerns a poultry farm in Andhra Pradesh that had an insurance policy for Rs. 20 lakhs covering damages caused by a cyclone. The farm suffered extensive damage, and the insurance claim was initially accepted for Rs. 88,665 but the farm claimed Rs. 5,79,000 (!) .
The District Forum ordered the insurance company to pay Rs. 3,59,824 along with 12% interest and Rs. 3,000 towards costs. The order was modified by the State Commission to reduce the amount for poultry feed stock and interest rate, among other adjustments (!) (!) (!) .
The insurance company challenged the order, arguing that the consumer fora interfered with the surveyor’s expert findings and that the award of interest was not lawfully permissible (!) .
The courts observed that the consumer fora had provided reasons for not accepting certain surveyor recommendations, especially where deductions for under-insurance and policy excess lacked proper explanation. It was held that no deductions for depreciation could be made in cases where poultry sheds were damaged shortly after policy issuance, specifically within two months (!) (!) .
The courts rejected the insurance company’s claim that the fora improperly substituted surveyor findings without evidence. They clarified that the fora’s decisions were supported by reasoning and evidence (!) .
The issue of awarding interest was addressed, with the courts noting that the interest was awarded from the date the insurance company issued a disbursement voucher, which the insured refused to accept. The courts emphasized that interest should align with the terms of the insurance contract, and in this case, only simple interest at 9% was awarded, along with litigation costs (!) (!) .
The courts found no jurisdictional error, irregularity, or illegality in the orders of the appellate authorities and dismissed the revision petition accordingly (!) (!) .
Overall, the decision underscores that deductions such as depreciation are not permissible when damages occur immediately after policy commencement, and the courts upheld the consumer fora’s findings and orders based on the evidence and applicable principles (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
Vinay Kumar, Member—This is the case of a poultry farm in Andhra Pradesh, which had obtained insurance cover for Rs. 20 lakhs for the period 26.8.1996 to 25.8.1997, from the present Revision Petitioner. The poultry farm reportedly suffered huge damage in the cyclone, which hit Andhra coast on 6.11.1996, with large-scale destruction of buildings, poultry feed and birds. The insurance claim filed by the Complainant/Respondent was accepted by the Insurance Company only for Rs. 88,665, on the basis of the report of the Surveyor. This was against his claim for Rs.5,79,000/-.
2. The District Forum ordered the Insurance Company to pay Rs.3,59,824/- with interest at 12% and Rs.3,000/- towards cost. In the appeal by the Insurance Company, the State Commission modified the order of District Forum to the following extent:
1) The amount awarded for the loss of poultry feed stock was reduced from Rs.239,850/- to Rs.200,000/- as feed stock was insured for Rs.2,00,000/- only.
2) The District Forum had allowed interest of 12% from 6th February,1997, which was reduced to 9% .
3. The above order of the State Commission has been challenged by the National Insurance Company Ltd., in this Revision Petition, substantially on the ground that the order of the consumer fora amounts to interference with expert finding of the Surveyor. The award of interest is also challenged as not permissible under the law laid down by the Apex Court. We have perused the records of this case and heard the counsel for the two parties.
4. We find that the fora below have clearly recorded reasons, wherever they have not accepted the recommendation in the Surveyor’s report. Thus, no breach of policy conditions was pointed out in the report of the Surveyor. Yet, deductions towards policy-excess and under-insurance have been made. This has been commented upon. In the course of the arguments before us, a question was directly posed to the Counsel for the Revision Petitioner on the deduction towards the under insurance factor. He accepted that the report of the Surveyor gives no explanation for it.
5. In the case of the four layer sheds and the godown, the loss assessed by the Surveyor is Rs.1,19,974/-. That is exactly the amount accepted by the District Forum and the State Commission. But, deductions towards under-insurance factor and policy excess have been found without any acceptable explanation and therefore, disallowed. The State Commission has very rightly observed that there could not be any deduction towards depreciation in the case of poultry sheds when they were damaged within two months after issue of the insurance policy.
6. In the above background, the plea of the Revision Petitioner that the fora below “not only interfered with the findings of the Surveyor who is an expert but on the contrary proceeded further and substituted the findings of the Surveyor with their own findings in the absence of any material to support this or even in the absence of any other contradicting Surveyor’s Report,” is found to be without any substance and cannot be accepted.
7. The Revision Petitioner also questioned the award of interest in this case on the basis of the decision in L.I.C. of India v. S. Sindhu.1 This was a case of a lapsed policy of life insurance. Upon the death of the insured, his wife was considered eligible to receive a reduced sum. The District Forum awarded interest on this sum from the date of the premiums till the date of settlement. The State Commission rejected the contention of the L.I.C. that it was not liable to pay this interest. The National
Commission confirmed the award. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal of LIC and held that “Courts cannot rewrite the contract of insurance and cannot direct the insurer to pay interest contrary to the terms of the contract.” The facts of the case before us are quite different. The interest awarded is from 5.2.1997 i.e. the date on which the insurance Company itself had sent a disbursement vo
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
