IMPORTANT POINT
The report of a surveyor is an important document and has to be considered for finalizing the insurance claim unless the same is rejected with some cogent reason.

ORDER

This appeal has been filed by the appellants Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors. against the order dated 10.08.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in CC No.03/2015.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent No.1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and its President Shri I.D. Aggarwal is authorized by the Board of Directors, vide resolution dated 26.12.2014, to file the present complaint and to pursue it. Complainant has one of its factories at Kala Amb. The building, the plant & machinery, furniture & fixtures, stock and all other goods belonging to the complainant were insured with the appellants/opposite parties for a sum of Rs.36.83 Crores for the period from 13.08.2013 to 12.08.2014. On 18.01.2014, one of two sheds of the factory, where Iron Melting Plant was installed, collapsed, resulting in damage to a vehicle, that was parked there and also to the plant and the machinery. Total loss sustained by the complainant, due to the aforesaid collapse of shed, was to the tune of Rs.72.00 lacs. When the shed collapsed and damage was caused, report was lodged with the police. A Police Officer inspected the shed and drew a report, dated 18.01.2014. Intimation of loss was given to the opposite parties and a Surveyor was deputed. However, nothing was paid to the complainant, despite repeated reminders and supply of documents and other information asked by the appellants or their Surveyor, respondent No.2. Complainant served a legal notice, upon the opposite parties. Notice was replied by the opposite parties, informing that the claim had been closed on account of the shed having not been maintained properly and damage having not occurred due to rain or storm, as alleged. Complainant then filed the present complaint for allowing the insurance claim. Opposite parties have contested the complaint and stated that though a surveyor deputed by them, has assessed the loss at Rs.38,02,957/-, nothing had been paid to the complainant for the reason that damage to the shed and plant & machinery was not caused by any of the perils covered under the policy and that enquiry and investigation conducted by the opposite parties, indicated that damage was caused to the shed due to its poor maintenance. The State Commission however, vide its order dated 10.08.2015 allowed the complaint as under:-

“20. As a result of the above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct opposite parties No.1 to 3, to pay a sum of Rs.38,02,957/-, by way of insurance money, with interest at the rate of 9% , per annum, from the date of filing of complaint, i.e. 31.03.2015, to the date of payment of the aforesaid amount of money, and also to pay Rs.2.00 lacs as compensation for deficiency in service and a sum of Rs.20,000/-, on account of litigation expenses.”

3. Hence the present appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellants first of all stated that complainants are Private Limited Company hence the complainants are not consumer. The shed of the complainants collapsed on account of the weak pillars, however, there was some rain on the day of collapse. The rain as a peril is not covered in the policy. The State Commission has allowed the complaint considering the damage to be due to storm whereas, the complainant has not pleaded anywhere in the complaint that there was storm and the damage was due to storm. The State Commission has wrongly observed that the complainant pleaded heavy rains and storm. The State Commission has relied on the report of the Sarpanch whereas, the report of the Sarpanch cannot be relied upon as against the report of the surveyor, who is technically qualified as well as authorized under the Insurance Act,1938 to submit survey report. It was further ar