Haryana

StateCommission

A/390/2016

DINESH SHUKLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

RAMANDEEP SINGH

14 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    390 of 2016

Date of Institution:    05.05.2016

Date of Decision :    14.07.2016

 

Dinesh Shukla s/o Sh. Satnarain Shukla, Resident of House No.643/32, Shivaji Colony, Rohtak.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its Branch/Regional Manager, Office Opposite D-Park, Model Town, Rohtak.

                                      Respondent/Opposite Party

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Ramandeep Singh, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This appeal has been filed by unsuccessful complainant to set aside the order dated March 3^rd, 2016, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed.

2.      Dinesh Shukla-complainant/appellant, got his House No.643/32, Shivaji Colony, Rohtak, insured with The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party/respondent, for Rs.15.00 lacs. On March 5^th, 2012, the house was damaged in earthquake. The complainant informed the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company appointed surveyor who inspected the damaged house and submitted report Exhibit R-2, whereby he assessed the loss at Rs.20,991/-. The amount was paid to the complainant. The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that the loss suffered by him was to the extent of Rs.3,60,000/-. Thus, the complainant sought direction to the Insurance Company to pay the balance amount and cost of litigation etcetera.  

3.      The best piece of evidence is the report Exhibit R-2) of the surveyor. The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.20,991/-.  On the other hand, it is the case of the complainant that he suffered loss of Rs.3,60,500/-. In support, he has relied upon the report (Exhibit C2/A) of Shri R.K. Jain, Architects.

4.      The complainant has not examined Shri R.K. Jain, Architects, to prove that the loss was worth Rs.3,60,500/-. Onus was upon the complainant. So, the report (Exhibit C2/A) secured by the complainant is not worth credence and the same cannot be taken into consideration. Thus, the complainant has failed to prove that he suffered loss of Rs.3,60,500/- and in view of this due weightage has to be given to the report of the surveyor.

5.      Hon’ble Supreme Court, in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.  Vs. Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. & Ors., (2000) 10 SCC 19, held that surveyor’s report is an important document and non-consideration of this important document results in serious miscarriage of justice.  

6.      In Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and Another, (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 507, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“There is no disputing the fact that the surveyor/ surveyors are appointed by the insurance company under the provisions of the Insurance Act and their reports are to be given due importance and one should have sufficient grounds not to agree with the assessment made by them”.

7       In D.N.Badoni Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd, 1 (2012) CPJ 272 (NC), Hon’ble National Commission held that Surveyor’s report has significant evidentiary value unless, it is proved otherwise.

8.      Having taken into consideration the facts of the case and the report of the surveyor, this Commission is of the view that the amount paid to the complainant is just, reasonable and there is no scope for further payment. No case for interference is made out.

9.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

Announced 14.07.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL