1.      This Revision Petition No. 1194 of 2017 challenges the impugned order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (‘the State Commission’) dated 23.02.2017. Vide which, the State Commission partially allowed the Appeal No.FA/2016/686 and reduced the quantum of compensation and interest awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg, Chhattisgarh (‘the District Forum’) dated 19.10.2016.

2.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that the Complainant was the owner of the Fiat Patra car No.CG-04H-6165 purchased in the year 2006. The said vehicle was insured with the Respondent/OP vide policy No. 192500131/31/2016/1190 valid from 21.04.2015 to 20.04.2016. On 29.11.2015 at about 11 AM, he was going by the said vehicle from his residence to Mudpar Kalan in the area of Police Station Berala. Suddenly, the car caught fire due to short circuit. The Complainant informed the Insurer as well as the police 30.11.2015. On 09.12.2015, the Complainant lodged the claim of the IDV value of the vehicle with the Respondent/OP. However, the surveyor of the Respondent/Insurance Company assessed the loss of the vehicle to be Rs.1,29,000/- on salvage basis. Being aggrieved, he filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum.

3.      In reply, the Respondent/OP admitted the vehicle in question was insured by it. The OP contended that the Surveyor undertook the necessary survey and assessed the loss to be to the tune of Rs.1,29,000/- on salvage basis. They further contended that the Complainant did not give the necessary information and documents as required by the insurance company and to dismiss the complaint.

4.       The learned District Forum, vide order dated 09.03.2016, allowed the complaint and directed the Respondent as under:

“i. The Non-Applicant do pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) to the Petitioner.

ii. The Non-Applicant do pay 12% interest on the aforesaid amount to the petitioner from the date of case institution i.e. from 09.03.2016 to its realization.

iii. The Non-Applicant do pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the petitioner in terms of mental compensation.

iv. The Non-Applicant do pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the Petitioner in terms of case expenditure.”

                                                  (Extracted from translated copy)

5.      Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Respondent/OP filed an Appeal before the State Commission and the learned State Commission, vide order dated 02.11.2016 partly allowed the Appeal and reduced the quantum of compensation and interest as under:

“30. Hence, appeal as submitted by the Appellant/Non-Applicant is partially allowed. Having been renovated the review order dated 19.10.2016 as passed by the District Forum it is directed that:-

1.  The Non-Applicant will pay Rs.1,29,000/- (Rupees one lac twenty nine thousand only) in lieu of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) to the Petitioner.

2. The Non-Applicant will pay interest @9% in lieu of interest with the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of Rs.1,29,000/- (Rupees one lac twenty nine thousand only) to the petitioner from the case institution date i.e. 09.03.2016 to its realization.

3. The Non-Applicant will pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) in lieu of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the petitioner towards mental compensation.

4. The Non-Applicant, whatever order for granting Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in terms of case expenditure has been passed, the same is remain unchanged.”

6.      In his arguments, the Counsel for the Petitioner/ Complainant reiterated the grounds in the Revision Petition and the Complaint and asserted that the vehicle in question was got completely destroyed in the fire and he is entitled for IDV of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.2 Lakhs. Whereas the State Commission reduced it to Rs.1,29,000/-, as assessed by the surveyor of the insurance company.  He argued in favour of the order passed by the District Forum.  He sought to set aside the order of the State Commission and uphold the order of the District Forum.  He has relied upon the following judgments:

i. New India Assurance Co. Ltd v Pradeep Kumar, (2009)7 SCC 787;

ii. The New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs JG Vaidya, Arbitration Petition No.923/2009 decided on 21.03.2013 by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay;

iii. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shishir Khandelwal, 2009 NCJ 502 (NC)’;

iv. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sona Spice Pvt. Ltd., IV (2010) CPJ 95 (NC);

v. National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rama Nanda, R.P. No.1649 f 2015 decided on 23.02.2016 by the NCDRC;

vi. Harjinder Pal Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., R.P. No.1351 of 2013, decided on 15.12.2015 by the NCDRC.

7.      Learned Counsel for the Respondent/OP argued in favour of the impugned order passed by the State Commission except the compensation awarded to the tune of Rs.50,000/-  as it is not justified for singular deficiency. He further argued in favour of the concurrent findings of the Fora below and sought to dismiss the Revision Petition with costs.  He has relied upon the following judgments:

i. Ashatai v Shriram City Union Finance Ltd (2019)5SCC 719;

ii. Rubi (Chandra) Duttav.United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269;

iii. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hareshwar Enterprises (P) Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 628;

iv. Sikka Papers Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 7 SCC 777.

8.      I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the reasoned orders of the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for the Petitioner.

9.      The main issue to be determined in the case is the quantum of compensation tenable under the policy for the loss claimed by the Petitioner/Complainant.

11. In the case of Sri Venkateshwara Syndicate Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 8 SCC 507, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further observed as under:

1. The assessment of loss, claim settlement and relevance of survey report depends on various factors. Whenever a loss is reported by the insured, a loss adjuster, popularly known as loss surveyor, is deputed who assess the loss and issues report known as surveyor report which forms the basis for consideration or otherwise of the claim. Surveyors are appointed under the statutory provisions and they are the link between the insurer and the insured when the question of settlement of loss or 17 damage arises. The report of the surveyor could become the basis for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured. There is no disputing the fact that the Surveyor/Surveyors are appointed by the insurance company under the provisions of 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. We also add, that, under this Section the insurance company cannot go on appointing Surveyors one after another so as to get a tailor made report to the satisfaction of the concerned officer of the insurance company, if for any reason, the report of the Surveyors is not acceptable, the insurer has to give valid reason for not accepting the report. Scheme of Section 64-UM particularly, of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) would show that the insurer cannot appoint a second surveyor just as a matter of course. If for any valid reason the report of the Surveyor is not acceptable to the insurer may be for the reason if there are inherent defects, if it is found to be arbitrary, excessive, exaggerated etc., it must specify cogent reasons, without which it is not free to appoint second Surveyor or Surveyors till it gets a report which would satisfy its interest. Alternatively, it can be stated that there must be sufficient ground to disagree with the findings of Surveyor/Surveyors. There is no prohibition in the Insurance Act for 18 appointment of second Surveyor by the Insurance Company, but while doing so, the insurance company has to give satisfactory reasons for not accepting the report of the first Surveyor and the need to appoint second Surveyor.”

“32. It is true that even any inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law or which has been undertaken to be performed pursuant to a contract, will fall within the definition of the expression ‘deficiency’. Butto come within the said parameter, the appellant should be able to establish (i) either that the Surveyor did not comply with the code of conduct in respect of his duties, responsibilities and other professional requirements as specified by the regulations made under the Act, in terms of Section 64UM(1A) of the Insurance Act, 1938, as it stood then; or (ii) that the insurer acted arbitrarily in rejecting the whole or a part of the Surveyor’s Report in exercise of the discretion available under the Proviso to section 64UM(2) of the Insurance Act, 1938.

37. Two things flow out of the above discussion, They are (i) that the surveyor is governed by a code of conduct, the breach of which may give raise to an allegation of deficiency in service; and (ii) that the discretion vested in the insurer to reject the report of the surveyor in whole or in part, cannot be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically and that if so done, there could be an allegation of deficiency in service.

38. A Consumer Forum which is primarily concerned with   an allegation of deficiency in service cannot subject the surveyor’s report to forensic examination of its anatomy, just as a civil court could do. Once it is found that there was no inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance of the duties and responsibilities of the   surveyor, in a manner prescribed by the Regulations   as to their code of conduct and once it is found that the report is not based on adhocism or vitiated by   arbitrariness, then the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to go further would stop.”

“17.......Therefore, in the facts and circumstances herein the surveyors report was submitted as the natural process, the conclusion reached therein is more plausible and reliable rather than the investigation report keeping in view the manner in which the insurer had proceeded in the matter. Hence, the reliance placed on the surveyor’s report by the NCDRC without giving credence to the investigation report in the facts and circumstances of the instant case cannot be faulted. In that view, the conclusion reached on this aspect by the NCDRC does not call for interference.”

“18. … Having considered this aspect, the rate of interest to be awarded in normal circumstance should be commensurate so as to enable the claimant for such benefit for the delayed payment. There is no specific reason for which the NCDRC has thought it fit to award interest at 12% per annum. Therefore, the normal bank rate or thereabout would justify the grant the grant of interest at 9% per annum. Accordingly, the amount as ordered by the NCDRC shall be payable with interest at 9% per annum instead of 12% per annum. To that extent, the order shall stand modified…”

14.    Based on careful perusal of material on record, deliberations above and the established precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in my considered view, the Complainant is entitled an amount of Rs.1,29,000/- along with 9% simple interest per annum from the date of filing of the Complaint before the District Forum i.e. 09.03.2016 till its realization, within a period of one month from the date of this order. In the event of default, the amount payable shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of expiry of one month till the realization of the entire amount. The Complainant is also entitled a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost. 

15.    Also the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.S. Dhanda, in CA Nos. 4910-4941 of 2019 decided on 10.05.2019 has held that multiple compensations for singular deficiency is not justifiable. Therefore, the award of Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant towards compensation for harassment and mental agony, over and above the component of interest already awarded is untenable and, therefore, set aside.

16.    The Revision Petition No.1194 of 2017 is disposed of accordingly.

17.    All pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.