IMPORTANT POINT
Report of Surveyor cannot be ignored by Insurance Company without any logical reason.

Mrs. Vineeta Rai, Member—This first appeal has been filed by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) which had allowed the complaint of deficiency in service filed by Balbir Singh, Complainant before the State Commission and Respondent herein.

2. FACTS :

Respondent-Complainant, who is engaged in the business of selling tyres and tubes and is also the Authorized Dealer of Modi Continental Tyres, had got his shop Jai Bharat Tyre Co. situated at Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company against a wide range of risks, including fire, theft, burglary etc., for the period from 29.05.1996 to 28.05.1997 for which the premium was also paid. On the night intervening 27th -28th November, 1996 during the validity period of the policy, a theft occurred in the Respondent-Complainant’s shop, in which tyres amounting to Rs.7,45,400/- were stolen. Respondent-Complainant immediately informed the Police and an FIR was registered. He also reported the matter to the Branch Office of the Appellant-Insurance Company at Bahadurgarh and lodged a formal claim. A Surveyor was duly appointed by the Appellant-Insurance Company, who assessed the loss at Rs.7,10,000/- approximately. It was stated that Respondent-Complainant had supplied all the necessary documents to the Surveyor. Despite this, Appellant-Insurance Company did not pay the said amount and instead deputed one Mr. Chawla to investigate the loss/claim and thereafter appointed a second Surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs.4,94,500/-. Respondent-Complainant on account of his financial obligation accepted this lesser amount under protest but even then Appellant-Insurance Company failed to pay the amount assessed by the second Surveyor. Aggrieved by this, Respondent filed a complaint before the State Commission on grounds of deficiency in service because of non-settlement/payment of the claim and requested that Appellant-Insurance Company be directed to pay the Respondent-Complainant the following amounts:

(a) Rs.7,45,400/- to the Complainant being the loss assessed by the first Surveyor.

(b) Interest @ 21% per annum on the above claimed amount with quarterly rests from 29.11.1996 to 31.03.1999 which comes to approximately Rs. 3,82,000/-.

(c) Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of compensation for undue and unwarranted harassment, mental agony and loss of business etc.

(d) Future interest on the total awarded amount @ 24%.

(e) Rs.1,00,000/- as cost of litigation.

3. Appellant-Insurance Company on being served filed a written rejoinder denying that there was any deficiency in service on their part. While no explanation was given in the written rejoinder for appointing a second Surveyor, Appellant-Insurance Company stated that the second Surveyor correctly assessed the loss at Rs.4,94,500/- after thoroughly scrutinizing all the documents. However, there was delay in settling this amount because the Respondent-Complainant himself failed to produce certain information sought from him. It was further stated that the complaint is not maintainable as Respondent-Complainant himself had given a letter of consent agreeing to accept Rs.4,94,500 as full and final payment in respect of the burglary insurance claim.

4. The State Commission after hearing the parties and on the basis of evidence produced before it allowed the complaint by inter alia observing as follows:

“16. From the evidence available on record, we find that the survey report given by the first surveyor i.e. M/s Lokendra Claims Care Corporation, New Delhi is a detailed report and the OPs have filed no evidence or given any reasons to disbelieve the same and have also put forward no cogent reasons for subsequently appointing the second surveyor and thereafter the third surveyor. This act of the OPs smacks of their ulterior motive and is not only illegal but is also a clea