Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 2292

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President, Pinki, Judicial Member
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Parvesh Chand – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. – 354/2017

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vikas Shokeen
For the Respondents: Rajesh Kumar Sharma

A surveyor's report is an evidentiary document but is neither binding nor conclusive; an insurance claim may be settled based on more reliable evidence of actual loss incurred by the insured, and failure to settle a legitimate claim constitutes a deficiency in service.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Insurance claim - Surveyor report - Admissibility and evidentiary value - The surveyor report is a piece of evidence but is not sacrosanct or conclusive - Where reliable evidence exists to rebut a surveyor's report, such as an investigator's report confirming actual repair expenses incurred, the final settlement should reflect the actual loss proved. (Paras 12, 13)

(B) Deficiency in Service - Failure to settle insurance claim for years despite proof of loss constitutes deficiency in service, warranting both the payment of the actual loss and additional compensation for mental agony and harassment. (Paras 10, 15, 18)

Facts of the case:
The complainant, the owner of a vehicle insured by the appellant, faced a claim denial and delay following an accident. A surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 92,167/-, but a later investigation confirmed that the vehicle was repaired at an actual cost of Rs. 2,40,000/-, with Rs. 1,75,000/- already paid by the insured. The District Commission ordered a payment of Rs. 2,67,000/-. The appellant contested this, arguing for adherence to the original surveyor's assessment.

Findings of Court:
The Commission held that the appellant was deficient in service for failing to settle the claim. While rejecting the surveyor's assessment as the sole conclusive document, it relied on the investigator's report showing an actual expenditure of Rs. 1,75,000/-.

Issues: Whether the surveyor's report is binding and whether the appellant demonstrated a deficiency of service by failing to settle the claim based on actual repair costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A surveyor's report is not the final word in insurance claims; if superior evidence such as verified actual repair expenses exists, the insurer must settle the claim based on the actual loss incurred by the insured.

Result: Appeal partly allowed; order modified to award Rs. 1,75,000/- with 9% interest, while maintaining the award for mental agony.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts and lower court proceedings regarding an insurance claim dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. analysis of the arguments regarding the surveyor report and deficiency of service. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. legal standard for the weight of surveyor reports relative to other evidence. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. final adjudication, modification of award, and disposal of the appeal. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

1. Complainant Mr. Parvesh Chand, has filed this complaint against Regional Manager New India Assurance Company Ltd., (OP-1), Branch Manager New India Assurance Company Ltd. (OP-2) & Suresh Sharma Exclusive Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3).

2. The facts in brief that the complainant is the registered owner of vehicle bearing no. DL-4C-AD-0488, Tavera, which was insured with respondent company under certificate of insurance/policy vide policy no.323202/31/07/01/00003774 covering a period from 17/03/2008 to 16/03/2009, for the total IDV of Rs. 4,42,740/-. The vehicle met with road accident on dated 26/05/2008 and was damaged badly, FIR No. 85/2008 under section 279/337/304-A IPC was registered at Police Station at Taraori, District- Karnal, wherein Smt. Saraswati Devi W/o Late Shri Ram Dutt Sharma and Smt. Sudha Rani Sharma W/o Shri Mahesh Chand Sharma expired and accordingly their legal heirs filed MACT claim under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act and the Hon'ble Court of Shri S.S. Malhotra Judge MACT Karkardooma Court passed the order against the respondent on 01/09/2011 for payment of compensation. The compensation was paid in terms of the order.

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 31.03.2017, whereby it held as under:

8. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. It has been argued on behalf of OP that the complainant did not furnish the documents which lead to passing of no claim. They have further argued that it was a case of total damage of vehicle which the complainant himself has stated in the complaint.

9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has stated that they have furnished the documents to the surveyor and the surveyor who inspected the vehicle have assessed the cost of the repair as Rs.92,167.66/-. They have further argued that though the surveyor have assessed the repairing charges as Rs.92,167.66/-, but they have paid the amount of Rs. 2,72,000/- for which bill was given by Shri Suresh Sharma (owner of OP-3).

10. During the course of proceedings OP stated that they did not dispose of the claim as certain outstanding payment was to be made by the complainant to repair. They submitted that they were ready to pay the amount of Rs.92,167/- towards full and final settlement to the claim to which counsel for complainant agreed, however no order was passed in respect of that. It has further been stated by Mr. Suresh Sharma owner of OP-3 that the bills were handed over to the surveyor for an amount of Rs.2,72,000/- for which he admitted of having received payment. Though the company took the plea that it was the case of total damage of the vehicle, but the fact that surveyor have assessed the claim for an amount of Rs.92,167/- and Shri Suresh Sharma owner of OP-3 has stated to have submitted the bill for an amount of Rs.2,72,000/- to the surveyor which the company has alleged to have not received, the version given by Shri Suresh Sharma owner of OP-3 have to be accepted as the photocopy of the bills have been placed by the complainant on record. Though the plea taken by OP that it was the case of total damage, but the fact that surveyor have stated in his report that delay in submitting his report was due to slow work by the repairer, as the vehicle was repairable and the complainant has

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 2292

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONSangita Dhingra Sehgal, President, Pinki, Judicial MemberNew India Assurance Co. Ltd. – AppellantVersusParvesh Chand – RespondentFIRST APPEAL NO. – 354/2017

A surveyor's report is an evidentiary document but is neither binding nor conclusive; an insurance claim may be settled based on more reliable evidence of actual loss incurred by the insured, and failure to settle a legitimate claim constitutes a deficiency in service.

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President, Pinki, Judicial Member
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Parvesh Chand – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. – 354/2017