IMPORTANT POINT
Weightage has to be given to report of Surveyor.

J. M. Malik, Presiding Member—Learned counsel for the parties present.

2. M/s P. K. & Company transacts the business of supplying rice husk to various industries. He obtained insurance policy from National Insurance Company for Rs.60 lakhs. During the subsistence of the insurance policy, in the 4th week of July, 2010, the rice husk of the complainant lying there was destroyed/washed and accordingly he suffered huge financial loss. The first surveyor visited the spot and assessed the loss at Rs.4,71,586/-. However, the insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that it was lying in the low lying area, no drainage facility was there and this peril is not covered under the insurance policy.

3. Aggrieved by that repudiation, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint in its totality. The following order was passed:

“In view of the above cited case law, we accept the complaint and direct opposite party to pay the total assessed loss of Rs.4,71,586/- and order to pay in one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which interest @9% p.a. from the date of order till realization would be paid by the opposite party to the complainant.”

4. Aggrieved by that order, the appeals were preferred by both the parties. It is surprising to note that the State Commission of its own enhanced the award. The complainant did not claim those losses which were created by the State Commission. It is interesting to note paras 20 and 21 of the State Commission, which run as follows:

“No doubt that the report of the surveyor be respected but the report of the surveyor is not the last word, it should be upon some basis or principles. In case we go through the report of the surveyor the total property has been valued at Rs.78,79,352/- and it was insured for Rs.60 lacs and under insurance was Rs.18,79,352/- which comes to 23.60% and same stock after 5% storage, loss will come to the value of Rs.56,15,547/- which has been assessed as Rs.7,87,935/- but once he has taken storage loss 5% the surveyor of the appellant-opposite party cannot justify 10% less for previous loss when the policy was taken for this year, therefore, the amount of Rs.7,87,935/- has been wrongly deducted by the Surveyor. Then for salvage 60% has been deducted, which comes to Rs.9,45,523/-. During the course of arguments, it was put to the counsel for the appellant whether he is ready to return the salvage to the opposite party/respondent in case he is to receive the amount of Rs.9,45,523/- from the respondent but he did not respond. Therefore, value of salvage has been correctly deducted. Accordingly, the award passed by the learned District Forum requires modification apart from Rs.4,71,586/-, the appellant will also be entitled to Rs.7,87,935/- which was deducted on account of loss 10% of previous loss.

21. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant-respondent is partly accepted. The award passed by the learned District Forum is modified that the appellant/complainant will be entitled to Rs.12,59,521/-. He will be further entitled to 9% interest on this amount from the date of filing the complaint till payment.”

5. Even during the filing of appeal, the complainant did not claim more amount of loss then granted by the District Forum in his complaint. He had filed an appeal for interest and compensation. The order passed by the Judicial Member appears to be not legally tenable. He has not given any reason for rejecting the report of the Surveyor. It is surprising to note that the complainant and the OP rely upon the surveyor’s report but the State Commission went out of the way to enhance the loss by almost three times. The reasoning given by the State Commission does not appear to be correct.

6. It is well settled that due weightage has to be given to the report of the surveyor as was held in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited and others vs. Roshan Lal Oil Mills and ot