IMPORTANT POINTS
1) Agree with State Commission that surveyor in its report prepared with assistance of chartered accountant made an analytic assessment of the loss & Distt. Commission should not have overruled it by substituting its own appraisal.
2) State Commission has aptly dealt with & there is no jurisdictional error, or law point ignored or erroneously ruled, or miscarriage of justice

ORDER

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the State Commission’s Order dated 22.01.2013 in appeal no. 1299 of 2012 arising out of the District Commission’s Order dated 21.09.2012 in complaint no. 869(RBT) of 2011.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the two sides. Perused the material on record, including inter alia the District Commission’s Order dated 21.09.2012, the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 22.01.2013 and the petition.

3. Brief facts, relevant for the purpose of disposing the petition, are that the petitioner (the ‘complainant co.’) had taken a loan from the Punjab National Bank (the ‘bank’) and had hypothecated its stock with the bank. The bank had taken the subject insurance policy on behalf of the complainant co. from the respondents (the ‘insurance co.’). An incident of fire took place in the intervening night of 25/26.06.1999. The complainant co. made a claim of Rs.12,27,217/-. The surveyor appointed by the insurance co. assessed the loss at Rs.2,48,155/-. Accepting its surveyor’s report, the insurance co. settled the claim at Rs.2,17,240/-, and, in accordance with the agreed tripartite arrangement between the complainant co., the bank and the insurance co., it paid the said amount to the bank, which, in turn, credited it to the loan account of the complainant co. The complainant co. filed a complaint with the District Commission against the insurance co. apropos the balance amount of its claim.

4. The District Commission made its appraisal, and, overruling the surveyor’s report, ordered the insurance co. to pay an additional amount of Rs.7,88,965/-, over and above the amount of Rs.2,17,240/- already paid, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 01.01.2001 till realization.

In appeal, the State Commission set aside the Order of the District Commission and dismissed the complaint.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant co. argues two issues, first, that the bank while accepting the amount of Rs.2,17,240/- (only) from the insurance co. could not have issued a discharge voucher extinguishing any further liability of the insurance co., second, that the surveyor had under-assessed the loss at Rs. 2,48,155/- (only).

6. We see that the State Commissions has aptly dealt with both these issues in its impugned Order.

In respect of the first issue, it has quoted the terms and conditions of the subject policy, viz. “That upon any monies becoming payable under this policy the same shall be paid by the Company to the Bank and such part of any monies so paid as may relate to the interests of other parties insured hereunder shall be received by the Bank as Agents for such other parties; “That the receipts of the Bank shall be complete discharge of the Company therefor and shall be binding on all the parties insured hereunder” and “That if and whenever any notice shall be required to be given or other communication shall be required to be made by the Company to the insured or any of them in any manner arising under or in connection with this policy such notice or other communication shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given or made if given or made to the Bank.”, and taking reference therein has held that “The perusal of the agreed bank clause in the terms of the insurance policy makes it explicitly clear that the bank was competent to give complete discharge of the liability to the insurance policy and pursuance thereto the bank had given full and final settlement discharge voucher. It is not a case where discharge voucher was signed under some duress or coercion.”

A reading of the terms and conditions of the subject policy shows that the State Commission has rightly held that the bank was competent to give complete discharge of the liability.

The complainant co. had been financed by the bank, its stock was hypothecated with the bank, the bank had taken the subject insurance policy in its own name (by paying the premium, which was debited to the loan