Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member
Tarun Parekh – Appellant
versus
Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. – Respondent
First Appeal No.62 of 2015
(Against the Order dated 12/12/2014 in Complaint No.225/2012 of the State Commission Maharashtra)
Decided on 24.5.2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 51] – Insurance – Fire Accident - Appeal against order of State Commission - Whether claim of Complainant is genuine - authenticity and genuineness of the abnormal purchases – Not roved - The Survey Report admits the severity of loss and damage caused by the fire in the mezzanine floor, however, it questions the quantity of stock in the go-down prior to the occurrence of fire - As per the Survey Report, the inflated stock during the period of 18 days prior to the occurrence of the fire incident to the extent of Rs. 30,44,485/- was not found to be bona fide, and hence was not considered for the purpose of assessment. The Insured could not establish the authenticity and genuineness of the abnormal purchases in that short period – Thus, Appellant did not adduce any further evidence - Further, it is settled proposition that the report submitted by a Surveyor is an important piece of evidence and has to be given due weight, though it is not sacrosanct and can be ignored, provided there is cogent evidence otherwise. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the amount assessed by the Surveyor, as has been accepted by the Opposite Party Insurance Company is to be accepted. Consequently, the allegation of the Complainant that the Surveyor arbitrarily reduced the assessment amount does not stand and is rejected - Also, there is no question involved in the present case with respect to the integrity of the Surveyor in performance of his duties or genuineness of Survey Report prepared by him - State Commission has given a detailed and well-reasoned order. The Appellant failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference in Appellate jurisdiction. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. [Paras 11 to 12]
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member.—This Appeal is filed against the order dated 12.12.2014 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. 225/2012.
2. The Complainant/ Appellant is a proprietor of M/s Britolite Industries, engaged in trading business of acrylic sheets, off cut and rod in wholesale and retail market. The Complainant took Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy No. 121700/11/2012/155 from the Opposite Party/ Respondent Insurance Company to insure his godowns situated at 10, Qureshi Compound, Near Himalaya Hotel, S.V. Road, Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai – 400102 and at 50, Ashirwad Industrial Estate, Building No. 5, Ram Mandir Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai -400104, valid from 10.05.2011 to 09.05.2012.
3. The case of the Complainant/Appellant is that on 19.10.2011, fire broke out in the godown at 10, Qureshi Compound, Near Himalaya Hotel, S.V. Road, Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai – 400102 belonging to the Complainant. The Complainant informed the fire brigade as well as the Police Officers about the incident. The Divisional Manager of the Opposite Party was also informed of the fire incident and requested to appoint Surveyor to assess the loss. According to the Complainant, goods worth Rs. 71,50,513.75 were in the godown before the fire broke out and the goods worth Rs.26,90,000/- were lost in the fire. The Opposite Party appointed M/s Amar Obhan as Surveyor to assess the loss. The Surveyor visited the site of the Complainant on 19.10.2011 and submitted the Survey Report dated 14.02.2012, estimating the loss of the Complainant on account of damage to the Stock to the tune of Rs. 94,611/- as against the claim of Rs.26,90,000/-. The Surveyor mentioned in the report itself under the caption “Survey & Assessment”, the godown used by the Complainant was completely destroyed along with the stock in the godown. The Surveyor after observing the damage due to the fire had arbitrarily reduced the claim of the Complainant from Rs. 26,90,000/- to Rs. 94,611/- without considering the facts, figures and evidences put forth by the Complainant. The offer of Rs. 94,611/- by the Opposite Party Insurance Company was, therefore, rejected by the Complainant. Since all efforts to get compensated adequately under the Insurance Policy did not yield any result, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No. 225 of 2012 in the State Commission with the following prayer:
“(a) that this Hon’ble Commission be pleased to direct the opposite party to rectify the defects in its service as insurer and to pay the complainant’s legitimate claim of Rs. 26, 90,000/- together with interest @ 12% per annum on the said amount from 19.10.2011 (six months concession as per IRDA guidelines) till date of filing the present complainant, i.e., as per the particular of claim annexed and marked as Exhibit “J” and further interest @ 12% on the said amount of Rs. 26,60,000/- from the date of complaint till realization.
(b) that the opposite party be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the ground of deficiency of service and also on the ground of failure on the part of opposite party to favourably consider the complainant’s legitimate claim;
(c) that the cost of Rs. 50,00,000/- be provided for filing the respect claim;
(d) for such other and further relief as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.”
4. The Complaint was resisted by the Opposite Party/ Respondent by filing a Written Version wherein it was stated that the Complainant had fraudulently escalated the claim, which was not payable under the Policy. The Surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.94,611/- after a proper and thorough investigation. The amount of loss assessed by the Surveyor was offered to the Complainant and the Complainant refused to accept the sa
Surveyor Report - report submitted by a Surveyor is an important piece of evidence and has to be given due weight, though it is not sacrosanct and can be ignored, provided there is cogent evidence ot....
(1) Hearsay – No documentary evidence in regard to financial stress of the insured has been brought on record and this assertion is merely a hearsay.(2) Sampling – A mere sampling of some bills canno....
Approved Surveyor’s assessment is necessary for a claim – There is no reason to reject Report of Surveyor Target Surveyor which inspire confidence of Bench.
Report of Surveyor which inspires confidence of Bench, cannot be rejected.
IMPORATNT POINT Appointment of Surveyor – Insured can also appoint a Surveyor or loss accessor.
Report of surveyor is an important document and a basis for consideration of the claim.
The court emphasized the significance of a survey report in insurance claim disputes and affirmed that claims must align with properly assessed loss evaluations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
