Insurers must appoint qualified surveyors and provide just compensation based on thorough assessments; arbitrary alteration of surveyor findings by consumer commissions is impermissible.

ORDER

PER BHARATKUMAR PA ND YA. MEMBER

1.IHGFETDhCiBs appeal has been filed by the OP insurer against the order dated 05.01.2022 passed by the State Commission whereby State Commission allegedly committed an error in holding that the amount of compensation should be double the assessment made by the surveyor. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant purchased a round Drip Irrigation Pipe Machinery on 26.02.2014 at a cost of Rs.37,13,823/- and obtained a Marine Cargo Specific Voyage policy from the petitioner insurer to cover the entire insurance cover of the full consideration of the machinery paid by the complainant during transit. The truck in which the equipment was being transported met with an accident on 27.02.2014 during the transit and a police complaint was also registered. Since the truck carrying the consignment met with an accident, machinery was again sent back to the consignor for detailed inspection. After a detailed and thorough inspection of the Irrigation Pipe Plant Machinery, it was concluded that the respondent/complainant suffered entire loss of the machinery and the said machinery could not be used further. Respondent claimed a loss of Rs.47,13,823/- from the insurance company. After receiving the intimation about the loss, insurer appointed surveyor. Preliminary survey report dated 18.03.2024 (page 67 to 70 of the appeal) was submitted by the surveyor estimating the loss of around Rs.25 lakhs to Rs.30 lakhs on external visual basis and also requested insurer for appointment of a final surveyor. Final surveyor Mr. Pranav Kumar submitted his report on 09.05.2014 (page 71 to 77 of the appeal). Relevant portion of the final survey report is extracted below:

• The supplier mentioned in their email dated 19/03/2014 that they had mentioned the approximate cosl of repairing of damaged machine, but they will have to calculate the actual cost of repairing only after inspection, for this they needed at least 2 weeks time. Even after several reminders they failed to provide the same.

• In the opinion of Mr. Mukcsh Mehta, the repairing cost of the damaged instrument could be approximate 33% of the cost of New Machine. (Email dated 19/03/2014 Mr. Mehto to R R last)

• The cost of new Machine is approximate 3713823.00 • The insured insisting for total loss of the damaged equipment and pressurisaing hard to settle the claim on total loss, but they failed to provide the documents to ascertain the actual loss.

• The insured earlier stated tltat the consgnot will keep the damaged equipment, but they failed to oblige in writing.

• The actual damages of the damaged equipment can be ascertained only after dismanling and checking of damaged equipment. The Insured are not co-operating for that.

• M/s R R Plast Extrusions P Ltd. had sent the new and same time Equipment to insured in place of damaged equipment vide L R No. 3867 dated 13/032014 and Invoice No. 437/1344 dated 13/03/2014. The insured failed to provide the payment details of the new equiment

CONCLUSION:

In my opinion, on the basis of papers provided by the insured and physical inspection of the damages instrument the cost of repairing/replacement of damaged parts in the machinery are approximate eight lakhs. The actual assessment can be ascertained only after getting the estiamte of damaged parts by supplicr/componciits’ manufactruer. The insured failed to provide the same and the insured only wants to settle the claim on total loss basis which is not acceptable to us.

Hence the concerned claim may be considered accordingly subject to Policy terms and condtions and final appr