ORDER HON’BLE MR. DINESH SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER Taken up through video conferencing. 1. This Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the ‘Act 1986’), challenging the Order dated 16.07.2015 in C. C. No. 85 of 2011 passed by The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (the ‘State Commission’). 2. Heard arguments from Mr. Mukund Gupta, Advocate, learned counsel for the Appellants (the ‘Complainant Firm’) and Mr. Kishore Rawat, Advocate, learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1 to No. 3 (the ‘Insurance Co.’). Vide Order dated 27.08.2020, the Respondent No. 4 (the ‘Surveyor’) was deleted from the array of the parties. Perused the material on record including inter alia the impugned Order dated 16.07.2015 of the State Commission and the Memorandum of Appeal. 3. Admitted facts are that the Complainant Firm is running an Oil Mill. It took a Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy. The premium was paid. The policy was valid. A fire broke out in the insured premises in the night of 09.05.2011. The Insurance Co. was intimated. Survey was conducted. The Complainant Firm claimed loss of Rs.27,90,299/-. The Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.5,70,187/-. The Insurance Co. settled the claim at Rs.5,70,187/- i.e. at the loss assessed by its Surveyor. Aggrieved, the Complainant Firm filed a Complaint before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its impugned Order of 16.07.2015 dismissed the Complaint. 4. The State Commission in passing its Order of 16.07.2015 has determined that the Surveyor’s Report which assessed the loss at Rs.5,70,187/- is reliable and no deficiency on the part of the Insurance Co. is made out in settling the claim at the loss assessed by its Surveyor. Resultantly, it has dismissed the Complaint. The State Commission has summarized its examination in paras 13 to 17 of its impugned Order, reproduced below for ready reference: 13. Similarly, the surveyor allowed damage to the 387.5 Qtls of cotton seed cake @50% as the same was found partially affected. Whereas complainant has claimed loss to whole of stock shown as balance in the books, which cannot be accepted without physical verification by Surveyor 14. M/s Mittal Surveyors Private Ltd., who is IRDA authorized surveyor, has given detailed reasons in his report for assessing the loss. He also gave reasons for working out the rates applicable on the basis of record supplied by complainant. After taking into account those rates, the total loss was assessed as under: Item | Qty (Qntl) | Rate Per Qntl | Value | Loss assessed | Percentage | Cotton Seed | 50 | 1,586.00 | 79,300.00 | 79,300.00 | 100 | Cotton Seed | 30 | 1,586.00 | 47,580.00 | 7137.00 | 15 | Cotton Seed Oil | 50 | 5600 | 2,80,000.00 | 2,10,000.00 | 75 | Cotton Seed Cake | 387.5 | 14,00.00 | 5,42,500.00 | 2,71,250.00 | 50 | Total | | | | 5,67,687.00 | | Add Labour Charges | | | | 10,000.00 | | Add Fire Brigade Charges | | | | 2,500.00 | | Loss Assessed | | | | 5,80,187.00 | | Less Excess Clause | | | | 10,000.00 | | Adjusted Loss | | | | 5,70,187.00 | |
15. Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Roshan Oil Mills 1999 (7) CPSC 741 held that Surveyors Report is an important document and its non-construction would result into serious miscarriage of justice and that same cannot be rejected without cogent reason. Similarly, Hon’ble Apex Court in Sikka Papers Limited Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. III (2009) CPJ 90 (SC) was pleased to held as under: “It is true that surveyor’s report is not the last word but there must be legitimate reasons for departing from such report. In our view, the complainant has failed to show any reason justifying rejection of surveyor’s report dated May 15, 2000.” 16. In the present case, the Surveyor has visited the site immediately after the incidence of fire, when scene of the incidence was not yet disturbed. He assessed the loss giving detailed reasons for each and every item after considering the claim filed by the complainant. 17. In view of the above discussion, we find that the report of the Surveyor, regarding the assessment of the loss caused to the insured in the fire incidence, is reliable and that OPs have rightly settled the claim on the basis of the said report. Consequently, the complaint filed by complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs. 5. Mr. Mukund Gupta, learned counsel for the Complainant Firm argued that the Surveyor has not conducted its investigation and assessment correctly. 6. Mr. Kishore Rawat, learned Counsel for the Insurance Co. argued that the Surveyor has made a correct assessment of the loss and the Insurance Co. has rightly settled the claim at the loss assessed by the Surveyor. Discharge Voucher and Letter of Subrogation were furnished by the Complainant Firm without any protest / objection. 7. Investigation and Survey by an insurance company are fundamental in determining the amount payable to the insured. An insurance company is duty bound to appoint its surveyor in accordance with the provisions of The Insurance Act, 1938 (Section 64 UM Surveyors or loss assessors). Its surveyor has to possess the prescribed qualifications, it is accountable, inter alia also to the regulator. A Survey cannot be disregarded or dismissed without cogent reasons (it, but, also goes concomitantly that the rationale and computation recorded in the Survey should be convincing and pass credence in scrutiny). 8. The State Commission in its impugned Order has sufficiently examined the Surveyor’s report and passed a reasoned order in finding no infirmity therein. 9. The onus, [a] of showing that the Report of the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Co. was flawed and [b] of showing that actually in fact the loss was Rs. 27,90,299/-, was on the Complainant Firm, which onus it failed to discharge. 10. No reason is visible to occasion interfering with the findings of the State Commission and its order to dismiss the Complaint, specifically no cogent material is available to accept the loss of Rs.27,90,299/- claimed by the Complainant Firm or to assess / enhance the loss to a value higher than that assessed by the Insurance Co.’s Surveyor. 11. The Appeal fails. The State Commission’s impugned Order is upheld and confirmed. 12. The Registry is directed to send a copy each of this Order to all parties within three days. |
