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

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. —Appellant
versus
Pave Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. —Respondent
First Appeal No.397 of 2014
(Against the Order dated 05/06/2014 in Complaint No. 02/2013 of the State Commission Sikkam)
Decided on 21.5.2015

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Salil Paul & Mr. Sahil Paul, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Eklovya Rai Nagpal & Ms. Shikha Nagpal, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Loss of assessment by approved Surveyor can be discarded only on cogent reasons.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Damage to construction site due to heavy land slide—Final survey report reveals that there was damage firstly to road protection work with sheet and to wall and foundation beam and footing under construction—Surveyor also observed that road protection work with sheet piling and housing property was not covered by Insurance Company and Insurance policy covered only R.C.C. Civil construction of multi-level parking—Loss of assessment by approved Surveyor can be discarded only on cogent reasons—State Commission has not given any cogent reasons for departing from Surveyor’s report—Compensation of Rs.38,14,278/- awarded by State Commission substituted by Rs.1,26,920/- and rest of order upheld. (Paras 7 to 12)

       Result : Appeal Partly allowed.

ORDER

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 5.6.2014 passed by the Sikkim State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gangtok (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No. 02/2013 – Pave Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. by which, complaint was allowed and OP was directed to pay Rs. 38,14,278/- with 10% p.a. interest.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent a construction company obtained insurance policy from OP No. 1/appellant for a period commencing from 16.2.2010 to 15.6.2012. On 13.1.2011 on account of heavy landslide at the construction site on-going construction was damaged. FIR was lodged and intimation was given to OP No. 1. OP deputed surveyor for assessing loss. At the same time, complainant also engagedMr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, surveyor. It was further submitted that inspite of repeated requests, OP-1 did not intimate complainant about the exact amount of loss assessed by its surveyor, but complainant submitted claim along with loss of Rs.40,70,531.29 assessed by Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal which was actual expenditure incurred by complainant in restoration of insured property damaged by landslide. It was further submitted that OP by letter dated 1.9.2012 offered a sum of Rs.1,01,274/- as full and final settlement against claim which was refused. Later on, OP by letter dated 19.9.2012 closed case of complainant as ‘no claim’. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before State Commission. OP resisted complaint and denied allegations made in the complaint. It was further submitted that on intimation from complainant, surveyor was appointed who visited spot on 25.1.2011 and 26.1.2011. It was further submitted that inspite of repeated reminders, complainant failed to furnish a number of documents requisitioned by surveyor. It was further submitted that surveyor engaged by complainant was not an IRDA approved and licensed surveyor and no prior written consent was taken from OP and in such circumstances, estimate prepared by complainant’s surveyor was not valid. It was further submitted that no request for joint survey was made by the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties allowed complaint as mentioned above against which this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

3. As there is delay of only 1 day in filing appeal, delay stands condoned.

4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that learned State Commission has committed error in allowing complaint on the basis of assessment made by unauthorized surveyor and committed error in not giving due weightage to loss assessed by surveyor appointed by OP; hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside and loss may be awarded as per OP’s surveyors assessment. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, appeal be dismissed.

6. Perusal of record clearly reveals that Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal was granted licence by IRDA for Category ‘C’ claims pertaining to fire. Admittedly, Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal was not authorized to conduct survey for assessing loss on the disputed site. As per Regulation 14 (4), every surveyor and loss accessor is eligible to carry on his work as a surveyor or loss accessor, as per the categorisation specified in the license and as per Regulation 15 (5), he will not accept or perform survey works in areas for which he does not hold a license. Admittedly, Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal was not granted license by IRDA for assessing loss at the disputed site on account of rain and in such circumstances, no weightage can be given to the assessment made by him.

7. Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal admitted in his cross-examin









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