Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 2840
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM, VSM (RETD.), PRESIDING MEMBER, DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER
National Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Om Motors – Respondent
First Appeal No.57 of 2024|Complaint No.37/2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Nikita Chauhan
For the Respondents: Mr.Aakash Nandolia, Mr. Krishan Kumar, Mr. Seemant K. Garg
The insurer must substantiate any dispute against the surveyor's assessment to ensure fair settlement of claims under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 51 - Appeal filed against the decision of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directing payment of Rs.34,51,917 to the complainant along with compensation and interest - Complainant sought relief after fire incident damaging insured goods - Dispute over assessment of loss and delay in payment by insurer - Court held the surveyor's assessment must be considered and the insurer cannot arbitrarily reject it. (Paras 10, 16-17)
(B) Insurance - Claims assessment - The court emphasized the binding nature of surveyors' reports, indicating that insurers must provide valid reasons when disputing the assessment made by a surveyor. (Paras 13, 14)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. insurance policy covers loss from fire damage. (Para 1 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding the assessment and payment dispute. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. surveyor's report must be honored unless substantial reasons provided. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. final decision to uphold surveyor’s findings on loss assessment. (Para 16) |
| 5. the case is finally disposed with specific payment directions. (Para 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT
AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM, VSM (RETD.), PRESIDING MEMBER
1. This First Appeal under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the Act”) is filed by the OP against the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana (State Commission) vide Order dated 17.10.2023 in CC No.37 of 2018 allowing the Complaint and directing OP to pay Rs.34,51,917 as assessed by the surveyor along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim till the payment is made and Rs.50,000 as Compensation towards mental agony and Rs.25000 as litigation costs.
2. As per Registry report, there is 38 days delay in filing this Appeal. For reasons stated in I.A. No.1662 of 2024, the said delay is condoned.
3. For convenience, the parties in this matter are referred to as stated in the Consumer Complaint before the State Commission.
4. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that the Complainant is an authorized Mahindra & Mahindra automobile dealer managed by Sh. Hari Singh. The Opposite Parties (OP) No.1 & 2 are the Insurers of the dealership premises and the OP-3 is the Financier. The dealership venture was insured from 09.04.2016 to 03.06.2017, covering stocks such as two-wheelers, spare parts, machinery, computers etc. On 28.05.2017, a fire was caused in the showroom due to a transformer short circuit. The fire brigade extinguished the blaze after two hours. The total loss claimed by the complainant was initially ₹60–65 lakhs and later revised to ₹39.86 lakhs, after 15% depreciation, including damage to stock, machinery, furniture and old vehicles. The surveyor appointed by the OP visited the site from 29.05.2017 to 15.07.2017 and assessed the loss. But the surveyor acted casually, reducing the claim by 90–95% without justification. OP-1 offered ₹3.25 lakhs and withheld the payment due to non-submission of discharge voucher by the complainant/OP-3. The claim was repudiated by the OPs on 20.11.2017. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission alleging delay, arbitrary deduction, failure to release even the assessed ₹3.25 lakhs, unfair trade practice by gross undervaluation of loss and sought relief of ₹39.86 lakhs for depreciated stock loss, and ₹2 lakhs as additional losses and ₹4 lakhs towards harassment and interest.
5. On being issued notice, OP-1 and OP-2 filed their Written Version and contended that the complaint is not maintainable due to disputed facts requiring detailed evidence. They relied on the surveyor report by M/s Rakesh Kapoor & Co.‟s report dated 13.11.2017, which assessed total loss at ₹3.25 lakhs. They claimed that the Complainant failed to submit requisite documents and discharge voucher from OP-3 (financier). OP-1 and 2 denied allegations of unfair practices, asserting procedural compliance. The OP-3 (financier) did not participate in proceedings.
6. The learned State Commission vide order dated 17.10.2023 allowed the complaint with the following observations:
“10. In the light of the above observation and discussion, there are sufficient grounds to accept the complaint and while accepting the complaint, the O.P. is directed to refund of the amount of Rs.34,51,917/- as assessed by the surveyor along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made. In case, there will be a breach in making payment within the stipulated period of 45 days, in that eventuality, the complainant would further be entitled to get the interest @ 12% per annum, for the defaulting period. The complainant is also entitled of Rs.50,00
