IMPORTANT POINT
The report of the surveyor forms the basis for settlement of the Insurance claim unless there are cogent reasons for not accepting the same.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner New India Assurance Company Limited against the order dated 28.04.2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short ‘the State Commission’) in FA No. 720/2008.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.8.2004, EPABX system (Alcatel) 4400 installed at the office of respondent was insured under Fire & Special Perils Insurance Policy No.310701/11/04/00357 for the period 12.8.2004 to 11.8.2005 for a sum insured of Rs.15,00,000/-. On 02.10.2004, it was reported that the said EPABX went out of order since 2.10.2004 and was claimed to be total loss. The surveyors, M/s. Insurance Technical Services inspected the affected machine on 28.10.2004. A claim for Rs.9,24,000/- was submitted by respondent to the surveyors. After applying under-insurance of 18.83% and the applicable excess clause the surveyor assessed the net amount of loss at Rs.7,40,011/- and submitted their report dated 24.1.2005. The Service Engineers of the insured machine had confirmed that the damage has taken place to the system cards due to very high voltage due to lightning and the surveyor agreed with the views of the Service Engineers. In view of the exclusion being applicable, the claim was not within the scope of the policy and was repudiated by letter dated 10.2.2005. The respondent then filed a complaint before the District Forum-6, New Delhi in August, 2005. The petitioner made their submissions before the District Forum stating that the damage to cards as reported was clearly excluded by policy conditions. The claim was beyond the scope of the policy and was not admissible. The District Forum however vide dated 13.5.2008 allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay to the respondent Rs.15 lacs with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony, harassment and deficiency of service and Rs.20,000/- costs. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.5.2008 of the District Forum, the petitioner Insurance Company preferred an appeal bearing No.720 of 2008 before the State Commission. However, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 28.4.2015 and upheld the order of the District Forum.

3. Hence, the present revision petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the original claim was for Rs.9,24,000/- that was submitted by the complainant for loss of damaged cards. However, the District Forum has allowed the claim for the total sum assured of Rupees 15 lacs and the State Commission has also confirmed the same. Under any insurance policy, no claim can be allowed for more amount than the claim filed with the insurance company. it was further argued by the counsel for the petitioner that exclusion clause number 7 of the general exclusions of the policy is attracted in the present case as the cards were damaged due to direct impact of electricity high voltage caused by lightning. It is clear that under this exclusion clause the component where the fire sets in is excluded under the policy and loss in respect of that component is not payable. In the present case, no other component has been damaged which could have been paid for. Both the Fora below have erred in not appreciating the General Exclusion Clause No. 7.

6. It was further argued that both the Fora below have not given any weight to the report of the surveyor, though there are numerous judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the report of the server cannot be brushed aside without any cogent reasons. No reasoning has been given for not accepting the report of the surveyor. Learned counsel referred to the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sikka Papers Limited Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., III (2009) CPJ 90 (SC) to support his assertion that report of the surveyor forms the basis for settlement of the claim until there are cogent reasons for not accepting the same. The surveyor has consider