IMPORTANT POINT
Partial satisfaction - There could be no question of accepting partial satisfaction of its claim as full and final settlement during the pendency of proceedings.

ORDER

This appeal under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is in challenge to the Order dated 04.04.2019 of the State Commission in complaint no. 92 of 2014.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainants (the appellants here) and for the insurance co. (the respondents here) and have perused the record.

3. Briefly, the complainants had taken an insurance policy from the insurance co. During the subsistence of the policy a fire broke out in the insured premises. The complainants claimed a loss of Rs. 90,73,136/-. The surveyor appointed by the insurance co. assessed the loss at Rs.37,64,520/-. The insurance co. settled the claim in consonance with the loss assessed by its surveyor and after some administrative deduction deposited Rs.37,62,938/- in the bank account of the complainants.

The State Commission has dismissed the complaint with inter alia the following observation:—

“Surveyor is an independent agency, which assess the loss after investigation and until some allegation are there it cannot be distrusted and it is important document which is liable to read in case of loss and it cannot be distrusted until allegation are there.”

4. Learned counsel for the complainants submits that they had made specific allegations apropos the surveyor and its report. The insurance co. had annexed the surveyor’s report with its written version and therefore the complainants had assailed the same in their rejoinder and had pointed out the various lacunae and shortcomings therein. The State Commission has not examined the surveyor’s report at all and has totally ignored the lacunae and shortcomings specifically pointed by the complainants. The State Commission has erred in assuming that there is no allegation against the surveyor when the fact is that a number of serious allegations had been specifically and categorically made against the surveyor and its report in the rejoinder.

5. Learned counsel for the insurance co. submits that the allegations apropos the surveyor and its report ought to have been included in the complaint ab initio. They were belatedly put forth in the rejoinder and as such the same have been rightly ignored by the State Commission.

6. Learned counsel for the complainants submits that when the surveyor’s report itself was placed by the insurance co. before the State Commission with its written version the first opportunity to object thereto was at the stage of filing rejoinder to the written version and the complainants had dutifully done the same.

7. We may first observe that survey and investigation are one of the fundamentals in settling a claim and cannot and should not be disregarded or dismissed without cogent reasons, but it also goes concomitantly that the survey or investigation should be convincing and pass the test of credence in scrutiny.

In the instant case specific allegations had been made in the rejoinder apropos the surveyor and its report. But the same have been left totally unaddressed by the State Commission. On the contrary a patent misstatement has been made in its Order to the effect that no allegation has been made apropos the surveyor or its report. We also note that the complainants made their allegations in their rejoinder at the first opportunity they had after the insurance co. filed the surveyor’s report with its written version. Considering all this the Order of the State Commission cannot stand. The State Commission ought to examine the allegations after affording opportunity to both the sides to lead their evidence and advance their arguments.

8. Learned counsel for the insurance co. then submits that an amount of Rs.37,62,938/- was accepted by the complainants in full and final settlement without objection and therefore the complaint ought to stand dismissed.

9. Learned counsel for the complainants submits that the payment of Rs.37,62,938/- was made during the pendency of the proceedings before the State Commission, much after the complaint asking for the claim