NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Presiding Member and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Member
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – Complainant
versus
Atul Metal Industries – Opp. Parties
Revision Petition No.196 of 2018
[Against the Order dated 29.09.2017 in FA No.281/2011 of the State Commission, Gujarat]
With IA No. 1219 of 2018 (Stay)
Decided on 12.9.2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 – Insurance – Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy – Accidental fire in factory – Compensation of Rs. 18,16,025/- alongwith 8% interest awarded by State Commission – Foundation for valuation of stocks stands firmly laid by complainant – There is substantive difference in quantity of number of pieces as well as rate of assessment made by Surveyor when compared with assessment of loss of stocks claimed by complainant – Loss had been assessed in survey report at lower rates by Assessor without any strong foundation – There is no basis to assume that damage to machinery was on account of water and had no relation to fire incident as recorded by Surveyor – Attempt made by Surveyor to reduce claim made by complainant without cogent grounds to support the same – Approved Surveyor’s report may be foundation for settlement of claim by Insurer but such report is neither binding upon insurer or insured – Concurrent findings of fact upheld. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
ORDER
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Member—Present revision petition has been preferred on behalf of the Insurance Company/(opposite party in the complaint), assailing Order dated 29.09.2017 passed by the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat in Appeal No. 281 of 2011.
2. In brief, Complainant who was doing business of manufacturing of gas kits and oil engines etc., purchased a ‘Standard Fire & Special Peril Policy’ on 22.03.2002 from the Opposite Party namely United India Insurance Co. Ltd., in respect of stocks in process and stock in go-down and two other policies covering the workshop, building, plant and machinery. During the currency of the policy on 11.04.2002 on account of accidental fire in the factory there was heavy loss of raw-material, manufactured material, aluminum, leather, machinery as well as the building in which factory was being run. The accidental fire was also reported to the police. On being informed, Sh. R.J. Jajpuira Kiraj, was appointed as surveyor for assessment of loss by the Insurance Company. Surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,87,000/- vide survey report dated 25.06.2002. The same was offered by the Insurance Company to the complainant vide letter dated 03.07.2002. Complainant further wrote letter dated 07.10.2002 to the Insurance Company for reconsideration of claim on the ground that as per stocks statement submitted to the bank on 06.04.2002, the goods and stock in trade were valued at Rs.19,28,198/-. However, the same was declined by the Insurance Company.
3. Aggrieved against the assessment of claim made by the Insurance Company a complaint was initially preferred before the State Commission which was withdrawn to prefer the same before the District Forum. The complaint was disposed of by the District Forum vide Order dated 06.03.2004 holding that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as policy in question was purchased for commercial purpose. Aggrieved against the Order dated 06.03.2004 passed by District Forum, an appeal was preferred before the State Commission which upheld the order passed by the District Forum, vide Order dated 28.09.2004. The same was further challenged before the National Commission, and the matter was remanded vide Order dated 04.08.2010, with directions to decide the complaint on merits. In the second round of litigation, Ld. District Forum after consideration on merits, allowed the complaint and the Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs.18,16,025/- to the complainant with running interest @ 8% p.a. from 04.10.2002 till realization. Appeal No. 281 of 2011 against the Order passed by the Ld. District Forum stands dismissed by the Ld. State Commission vide impugned Order dated 29.09.2017.
4. Aggrieved against the Order passed by the Ld. State Commission, present Revision Petition has been preferred by the Insurance Company I Opposite Party. Ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company clarifies that revision petition only challenges the issue of non-acceptance of assessment of loss made in terms of the survey report, which did not find favour with the District Forum as well as the State Commission.
5. Ld. counsel for the opposite party I Insurance Company (petitioner herein) contends that the assessment made in the survey report could not have been overlooked by the District Forum and State Commission since the surveyor categorically observed that the stocks were not perishable and cannot be burned to ashes, and the same were affected due to water. It is urged that Insurance Company accordingly agreed with the recommendations of the surveyor and approved the claim for Rs.2,87,000/-. Further there are no tangible reasons to differ with the assessment made by the surveyor.
He further contended that Insurance Company appointed Kirj Consultants to survey and assess the loss, who in turn took the service of Mr.Sunil A. Ganatra for the purpose of preparing of the inventory of the damaged stoc
Approved Surveyor’s report may be foundation for settlement of claim by Insurer but such report is neither binding upon insurer or insured.
Insurance claims must be assessed justly, with surveyor reports not being conclusive and subject to scrutiny.
Report of Surveyor which inspires confidence of Bench, cannot be rejected.
Insurance claims require reliance on duly substantiated surveyor reports, which can be contested by valid evidence from the insured parties.
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.
Surveyor's report on loss assessment is definitive unless credibly challenged; insurer's actions were not deemed deficient.
The court emphasized the significance of a survey report in insurance claim disputes and affirmed that claims must align with properly assessed loss evaluations.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.