IMPORTANT POINT
Assessment by surveyor appointed by the insurer should be relied on if contrary is not proved.

ORDER (ORAL)

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—The complainant/respondent obtained an insurance policy bearing no.1001/0066099 from the appellant, for the period from 13.12.2006 to 12.04.2007. The said policy insured the warehouse building of the complainant to the extent of Rs.50 lacs and the stock kept therein to the extent of Rs.1 Crore. The case of the complainant/respondent is that due to hailstorm and heavy rains on 13.03.2007, the roof sheets of the warehouse building were extensively damaged and rain water which entered the warehouse, destroyed about 25% of the stock kept therein. The complainant claims to have suffered loss to the extent of Rs.36,83,955/-, in respect of the stock alone. This is also the case of the complainant that the damage to the building also caused them loss to the extent of Rs.6,41,268/- as was certified by one Sh. M.L. Gupta whom they had engaged for the purpose. Since the claim was not paid, the complainant/respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of a Consumer Complainant seeking principal amount of Rs.43,25,223/- alongwith interest and compensation.

2. The complaint was resisted by the appellant which inter-alia stated in its reply that actual loss of the building was Rs.1,54,401/-. As regards the damage to the stock, it was stated in the written version that the damaged stock did not belong to the complainant, the same being owned by third parties and the insurance policies did not cover the goods held in trust.

3. The State Commission, vide impugned order dated 22.07.2011, directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.43,25,223/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint. Being aggrieved, the respondent insurer is before this Commission by way of this appeal.

4. As far as the damage to the building is concerned, M/s Cunningham Lindsey International Pvt. Ltd. who were the surveyors appointed by the insurer, assessed the gross damage to the complainant at Rs.2,12,533/-. After deduction on account of under insurance and policy excess, they arrived at a figure of Rs.1,44,401/-. The survey report would show that the damage had happened to the asbestos sheets and the surveyor, on making enquiry from a dealer of Cement Asbestos Sheets, had verified the price of the new sheets. He had counted the damaged sheets and calculated the cost of the new sheets, applying the price ascertained from the dealer, he made addition of labour charges for unloading the damaged sheets as well as for loading the fresh sheets. Since the total value of the building, as per the Balance Sheet of the complainant, was Rs.68,82,483/-, under insurance was applied by him and after making further deduction, on account of policy excess, he arrived at an amount of Rs.1,44,401/-.

5. As far as the alleged assessment made by Mr. M.L. Gupta is concerned, admittedly, he had been appointed by the complainant and therefore, was not a surveyor appointed in terms of Section 64UM of the Insurance Act. In any case, his report has not been placed on record and therefore, it is not possible to find out on what basis, he had made the assessment.

6. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant that the Panch witnesses had mentioned the loss to the roof of the warehouse at Rs.6,41,268/-. The panchnama however, does not indicate on what basis the amount of Rs.6,41,268/- was worked out. It does not give the total number of asbestos sheets, it does not give the market price of a new asbestos sheet and it also does not give the labour cost of removing the damaged sheets and installing new sheets. Therefore, no reliance on the said Panch witnesses can be placed when we have available to us, a well-reasoned report by M/s Cunningham Lindsey International Pvt. Ltd., based upon the market price verified by them.

7. As far as the stock of goods is concerned, it is an admitted position that the stock kept in the warehouse did not belong to the complainant and was third party s