Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member, Prem Narain, Member
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. —Appellant
versus
Shree Sunder Marbles —Respondent
First Appeal No.314 of 2014
(Against the Order dated 29/01/2014 in Complaint No. 01/2008 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
Decided on 30.11.2015
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Mohan Babu Aggarwal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Hemant Tak, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Surveyor report being important document under Insurance Act should be main point of consideration for assessing loss and deciding insurance claim.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2 (g) & 19 — Deficiency in service —Insurance Policy — Surveyor report cannot be accepted in respect of engine — As engine not opened and surveyor given finding on basis of two earlier cases — Where engine opened and repaired — Engine not got opened by respondent on technical advice of surveyor — HELD — We cannot take report of surveyor in respect of engine as correct as it has been given without technically examine various parts of engine assembly — Allowed replacement of engine assembly and counter-weight subject to salvage value of existing component. (Para 13)
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
The United India Insurance Company has filed the present appeal under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 29.01.2014 of the Rajasthan Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Jaipur, hereinafter referred as the “State Commission” passed in Complaint No. 01 of 2008 whereby the State Commission allowed the complaint of the complainant/respondent by giving direction to the appellant insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 39 Lakhs (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs) as against the insurance claim to the complainant with interest @ 9% w.e.f. 1.1.2008 alongwith Rs.1 lakh as compensation for mental agony and other expenses.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant purchased one hydraulic escavator, LZ&T PC-200-6 from the company M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. at the price of Rs.47,42,000/-. The above machine was duly insured by the appellant insurance company to the extent of Rs.47 lakhs. The above hydraulic machine while working at the mines met with an accident on 21.08.2007 loosing grip underneath on the rock slipped and toppled to one side and got totally damaged. The respondent/complainant submitted two quotations of M/s. J.E. Enterprises, Udaipur one for Rs.30,47,450/- and the other for Rs.7,10,845/- for repair of the above machine. Appellant Insurance Company appointed one Shri Vishnu Dutt Sharma as Preliminary Surveyor in the present matter who submitted his report dated 30.08.2007. The appellant/insurance company appointed United Technical Services, Udaipur as Final Surveyor for the assessment of loss. United Technical Services, Udaipur are ‘Approved Valuers, Charted Engineer, Surveyor & Loss Assessor and Mr. M.S. Sainani being its Chief Executive / Principal Surveyor conducted the Final Survey. Mr. M.S. Sainani vide letter dated 27.09.2007 asked the complainant to have the engine dismantled so that the verification of damaged parts could be ascertained. The complainant refused to dismantle the engine vide his letter dated 06.10.2007. The said Surveyor sent three reminders to the complainant to get engine dismantled, but the complainant did not comply with this request. The surveyor then submitted his report dated 05.11.2007 before the insurance company. The surveyor - M/s. United Technical Services have assessed the loss at Rs.9,27,055/-.
3. The respondent filed a complaint No. 01/2008 before the Rajasthan Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Jaipur which vide its order dated 29.01.2014 allowed the complaint of the complainant/respondent and directed the appellant Insurance Co. to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.39 lakhs (thirty nine lakhs) as against the insurance claim with interest @ 9% w.e.f. 01.01.2008 along with Rs. 1 lakh as compensation for mental agony and other expenses. The present appeal has been filed against this order of the State Commission.
4. We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the documents carefully.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the State Commission has allowed a claim based on the estimate submitted by the respondent from a private garage and has rejected the report of the surveyor without any proper reasoning. The law is that the survey report of the licensed surveyor cannot be brushed aside until there are cogent reasons. The Survey Report carries great value and should prevail over the report of any other opinion. There are numerous judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court underlying the principle that the report of the surveyor/loss assessor is an important document and cannot be rejected without any proper finding. In fact, the appointment of surveyor is as per the Insurance Act, and the insurance claim has to be based on the report of the surveyor. The private garages which give estimates of repair on the request of the claimant, are always inflated and they do not consider the other principles of finalising the claim such as depreciation, salvage value etc. The learned counsel mentioned that th
