Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
Chandan Nag —Petitioner
versus
National Insurance
Company Ltd. and Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.1042 of 2015
(Against the Order dated 28/11/2014 in Appeal No. 35/2010 of the State Commission Assam)
Decided on 1.2.2018
For the Petitioner:Shri Avijit Bhattacharjee and Upma Shrivastava, Advocates
For the Respondent Nos.1 to 3:Shri Kishore Rawat, Advocate
For the Respondent No.4: Proforma Party
IMPORTANT POINT
If for any reason, the report of the surveyors is not acceptable, the insurer has to give valid reason for not accepting the report.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Insurance- Petitioner/complainant was plying bus as per the route permit given to him by the Competent Authority and the bus fell into a deep gorge and was partly damaged - Intimation was given to the insurance company as well as to the police - Bus was taken out by the financier of the bus and it was taken for repairs but, bus was never returned to the petitioner/complainant and the same was disposed of by the financier- State Commission has rightly decided the insurance claim on the basis of the survey report- Revision Petition is dismissed.
Held: The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited &Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 507, has observed the following:-
“31. The assessment of loss, claim settlement and relevance of survey report depends on various factors. Whenever a loss is reported by insured, a loss adjuster, popularly known as loss surveyor, is deputed who assesses the loss and issues report known as surveyor report which forms the basis for consideration or otherwise of the claim. Surveyors are appointed under the statutory provisions and they are the link between the insurer and the insured when the question of settlement of loss or damage arises. The report of the surveyor could become the basis for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured.
32. There is no disputing the fact that the surveyor/surveyors are appointed by the insurance company under the provisions of the Insurance Act and their reports are to be given due importance and one should have sufficient grounds not to agree with the assessment made by them. We also add, that, under this Section the insurance company cannot go on appointing surveyors one after another so as to get a tailor-made report to the satisfaction of the officer concerned of the insurance company; if for any reason, the report of the surveyors is not acceptable, the insurer has to give valid reason for not accepting the report.”
Similarly, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sikka Papers Limited Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Ors., (2009) 7 SCC 777, has observed that:-
1. “Insurance-Terms and conditions specified in insurance policy- Binding effect- Insurance policy not covering parts of machinery which were required to be replaced due to normal wear and tear-Held, Insurance Company while assessing claim, rightly excluded those parts-
2. Insurance Act, 1938,- S. 64-UM- Surveyor/Loss assessor’s report- Weightage to be given- Held, Though not the last word, yet there must be legitimate reason for departing from report- No infirmity found in surveyor’s report and therefore held, Insurance Company rightly admitted claim as per the report.”
On the basis of the above authoritative judgments, it is seen that the State Commission has rightly decided the insurance claim on the basis of the survey report. The State Commission has already granted interest @ 9% p.a. and a compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Thus, the petitioner has been reasonably compensated as no shortcomings have been indicated in the report of the surveyor even at this stage of revision petition. Accordingly, I do not find any occasion to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the State Commission. Consequently, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
Based on the above discussion, the Revision Petition No.1042/2015 is dismissed with no order as to costs. (Paras 9 to 10)
Result: Revision Petition is dismissed.
Prem Narain, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, Chandan Nag against the order dated 28.11.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Assam Pradesh (for short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No.35 of 2010 wherein the appeal filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 18.12.2009 in CC No.30 of 2005 has been allowed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant was plying bus as per the route permit given to him by the Competent Authority and on 15.3.2003 the bus fell into a deep gorge and was partly damaged. The intimation was given to the insurance company as well as to the police. The first surveyor did the spot survey and took the photographs of the bus lying deep down in the gorge. After two days, the bus was taken out by the financier of the bus and it was taken for repairs. The bus was never returned to the petitioner/complainant and the same was disposed of by the financier. The second surveyor assessed the loss after inspecting the bus while it was under repairs. The surveyor assessed the loss of Rs.1,17,585/-. The insurance company repudiated the claim on the basis of the report of the second surveyor that there was mismatch of the chassis number of the bus in question. The complainant then filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum which was dismissed vide its order dated 18.12.2009 on the ground that chassis number mentioned in the R.C. does not tally with the chassis number reported by the surveyor in his report.
3. Complainant preferred appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and allowed the appeal as well as the complaint and directed the OP to release the amount of Rs.1,17,585/- as assessed by the surveyor alongwith interest @ 9% p.a.. The State Commission also awarded Rs.50,000/- as compensation.
4. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, the petitioner/complainant has preferred the present revision petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the bus was badly damaged and it was a case of total loss. However, the surveyor could not assess the complete vehicle as the vehicle was under repairs and under the possession of the financier and the complainant had no control over the vehicle. Thus, the loss assessed by the surveyor is not the complete and true loss. It was pointed out that the State Commission has recorded in its observation that the loss assessed by the surveyor is meagre looking at the photographs submitted by the spot surveyor. The learned counsel further argued that as it was a total loss so at least the claim should be settled on non-standard basis. To support his case, the learned counsel cited the case of Amalendu Sahoo vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases 536: [2010] 2 Supreme 674.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurance company stated that the insurance company has already made payment as per the order of the State Commission to the complainant. No specific objections were raised against the surveyor’s report before the State Commission. The State Commission has recorded in its judgment as no other basis is there to decide the claim, it has relied on the surveyor’s report. The learned counsel mentioned that Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in many of its judgments that surveyor’s report is an important document for deciding the claim of the insurance and the surveyor’s report cannot be brushed aside without any cogent reasons. As no objections were raised against the survey report, the State Commission also did not find any reason to discard the survey report and therefore, the claim has been allowed on the basis of the survey report only. It was further pointed out that it was not a case of total loss as the bus was repaired and finally sold. The State Commission has obser
