| 1. This is the case of a poultry farm in Andhra Pradesh, which had obtained insurance cover for Rs.20 lakhs for the period 26.8.1996 to 25.8.1997, from the present Revision Petitioner. The poultry farm reportedly suffered huge damage in the cyclone, which hit Andhra coast on 6.11.1996, with large-scale destruction of buildings, poultry feed and birds. The insurance claim filed by the Complainant/Respondent was accepted by the Insurance Company only for Rs.88,665/-, on the basis of the report of the Surveyor. This was against his claim for Rs.5,79,000/-.
2. The District Forum ordered the Insurance Company to pay Rs.3,59,824/- with interest at 12% and Rs.3,000/- towards cost. In the appeal by the Insurance Company, the State Commission modified the order of District Forum to the following extent:
1) The amount awarded for the loss of poultry feed stock was reduced from Rs.239,850/- to Rs.200,000/- as feed stock was insured for Rs.2,00,000/- only.
2) The District Forum had allowed interest of 12% from 6th February,1997, which was reduced to 9% .
3. The above order of the State Commission has been challenged by the National Insurance Company Ltd., in this Revision Petition, substantially on the ground that the order of the consumer fora amounts to interference with expert finding of the Surveyor. The award of interest is also challenged as not permissible under the law laid down by the Apex Court. We have perused the records of this case and heard the counsel for the two parties.
4. We find that the fora below have clearly recorded reasons, wherever they have not accepted the recommendation in the Surveyor report. Thus, no breach of policy conditions was pointed out in the report of the Surveyor. Yet, deductions towards policy-excess and under-insurance have been made. This has been commented upon. In the course of the arguments before us, a question was directly posed to the Counsel for the Revision Petitioner on the deduction towards the under insurance factor. He accepted that the report of the Surveyor gives no explanation for it.
5. In the case of the four layer sheds and the godown, the loss assessed by the Surveyor is Rs.1,19,974/-. That is exactly the amount accepted by the District Forum and the State Commission. But, deductions towards under-insurance factor and policy excess have been found without any acceptable explanation and therefore, disallowed. The State Commission has very rightly observed that there could not be any deduction towards depreciation in the case of poultry sheds when they were damaged within two months after issue of the insurance policy.
6. In the above background, the plea of the Revision Petitioner that the fora below ot only interfered with the findings of the Surveyor who is an expert but on the contrary proceeded further and substituted the findings of the Surveyor with their own findings in the absence of any material to support this or even in the absence of any other contradicting Surveyor Report,is found to be without any substance and cannot be accepted.
7. The Revision Petitioner also questioned the award of interest in this case on the basis of the decision in L.I.C. of India Vs. S. Sindhu, 2006 (5) SCC 258. This was a case of a lapsed policy of life insurance. Upon the death of the insured, his wife was considered eli | |
Back
