Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member
Through Video Conferencing
New India Assurance Company Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
Kakali Sengupta and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.2944 of 2016
(Against the Order dated 29/06/2016 in Appeal No.92/2016 of the State Commission Jharkhand)
Decided on 22.10.2020
For the Petitioner:Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty and Ms. Kanchan Yadav, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Assessment of loss caused by fire incident has to be reasonable and cannot be rejected by Insurance company without any basis.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21(b) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Section 58]—Insurance Act, 1938—Section 64-UVa(2)—Accidental fire—Assessment of loss—Scope—Fire broke out in premises of respondents—Surveyor assessed loss at Rs. 15,83,979/-—Second surveyor however assessed the loss at Rs. 11,94,516/-—However, Insurance company asked the complainant to settle the claim at Rs. 8,83,322/-—Whether Fora below were right in rejecting the assessment made by second surveyor ?—Conduct of Insurance company showing that they had not been acting fairly—Though the Insurance company had appointed a second surveyor yet has not even accepted its opinion and had arbitrarily and without any basis or justification sanctioned a sum of Rs. 8,83,322/-—Interference with impugned orders passed by Fora below declined. (Paras 13 to 16)
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER (ORAL)
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member.—This revision petition has been filed by the insurance company challenging the order of the State Commission dated 29.6.2016 whereby their appeal No.92 of 2016 against the order dated 17.03.2016 of the District Forum in Complaint No.100 of 2009 was dismissed.
2. In the present revision petition, the petitioner has not disputed the fact that the respondent had a valid insurance policy at the time when the fire had broken out in her premises and that she had filed the claim. It is also an admitted fact that upon receiving the claim, the insurance company had first appointed Sh. B. K. Bhardwaj to do the preliminary investigation in the matter and based on his report surveyor Mr. S. K. Sadhu was appointed who submitted his report, wherein he had calculated that the fire has been accidental and calculated the loss at Rs.15,83,979/- . He in his report has advised the insurance company to get the loss re-calculated by a CA and the insurance company appointed Mr. Satbir Singh Bhatiya who also happened to hold a surveyor licence. Mr. Satbir Singh Bhatiya, after his inquiry into the matter, calculated the loss at Rs.11,94,516/-. The insurance company even did not honor the loss assessed by Mr. Satbir Singh Bhatiya and sanctioned this amount to the complainant, rather they offered a sum of Rs.8,83,322/- and asked the complainant to settle their loss at this amount. The complainant did not accept this offer and filed the complaint.
3. In their written version filed before the District Forum, the insurance company took the plea that the report of the surveyor Mr. Satbir Singh Bhatiya should be accepted and had failed to give any justification for offering a sum of Rs.8,83,322/- to the complainant for settling her dispute. Parties led their evidences before the District Forum. Interrogatories were also served upon the insurance company. After going through all the documentary evidences on record and evidences led by the parties, the District Forum accepted the loss assessed by the first surveyor and accordingly granted the appropriate relief.
4. Aggrieved by the findings of the District Forum, the insurance company filed the appeal and raised the similar contentions that the assessment made by the second surveyor i.e. Mr. Satbir Singh Bhatiya should be accepted and that the same should be awarded to the complainant. This contention was, however, not accepted by the State Commission and the State Commission dismissed the appeal vide impugned order dated 29.6.2016.
5. This Order has been challenged by the insurance company before this Commission and has raised the similar objections that the loss assessed by Mr. Satbir Singh Bhatiya CA cum surveyor who was appointed in view of the advice of the first surveyor Mr. S. K. Sadhu ought to be accepted and the impugned order be modified accordingly.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant however has submitted that this Commission has no jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidences and substitute its opinion, especially when the concurrent findings of District Forum as well as of State Commission are well reasoned. It is also submitted that the law does not permit the insurance company to arbitrarily appoint the surveyors till they get the favorable report. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstance of the present case, their existed no circumstance, whether appropriate or expedient, to appoint a second surveyor because the first surveyor had considered all the documents produced before him and asked by him and he had thereafter given a very well-reasoned report. It is further argued that only because the first surveyor has casually mentioned for getting the loss reassessed by a CA, it does not ipso facto authorizes the insurance company to appoint a second surveyor. Fora below have been correct in accepting the loss occurred to the complainant in fire and assessed by the first surveyor i.e. Mr. S. K. Sadhu and has also rightly rejected the report of
