NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 1169 OF 2006
(Against the Order dated 16/12/2005 in Appeal No. 469/2000 of the State Commission Chandigarh)
1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.15 BARAKHAMBA ROAD NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110001
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. RANJIT SINGHVILLAGE SATOJ TEH SUNAM PUNAJAB
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :
NEMO
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 02 Feb 2010
ORDER
Respondent having not chosen to contest the proceeding despite served by substituted service by way of publication of notice in newspapers, learned counsel for petitioner was heard. Factual backgrounds are that respondent who holds a poultry farm got his 3000 broiler chicks insured with petitioner company on 04.05.1997. Allegedly, 3000 broilers died from gumbro disease and IBH. Broilers were of age group of 6-7 weeks. Post-mortem of dead birds were carried out by Dr. Harjeet Singh, Sr. Veterinary Officer who confirmed mortality of the birds. After insurance company was informed about death of birds, a Surveyor, namely Sh. R.K. Sharma came to be appointed by insurance company who submitted his report on 09.10.1997 contending inter alia therein death of 2863 birds against compensation claimed for death of 3000 birds. Since damages on account of death of insured birds were not assessed by Surveyor, District Forum, pursuant to filing of complaint by respondent, accepting claim of respondent granted compensation of Rs. 85,890/- assessing loss of Rs. 30/- for each bird. Cost of Rs. 700/- also came to be awarded by District Forum. In appeal that was preferred by insurance company, State Commission holding lack of jurisdiction to entertain complaint involving issue of fraud, unsuited respondent. In revision that was filed with National Commission against finding so recorded by State Commission, National Commission, while setting aside the finding, remitted the matter to State Commission with certain direction for affording opportunities to parties to lead evidence and to decide the matter afresh. State Commission pursuant thereto having questioned propriety of appointment of second Surveyor by petitioner insurance company while upholding award of District Forum, dismissed appeal. Primarily three-fold issues are raised by learned counsel for petitioner. Firstly, that genuineness of claim being in dispute and also that discretion of insurance company for appointment of second Surveyor cannot be questioned as this was the prerogative of the insurer and thirdly, even though claim of respondent did not find favour with second Investigator, namely, Dr. B.D. Bali appointed by insurance company, assigning sound reasonings for repudiation of claim, no due credence was given by fora below to aforesaid finding of second Surveyor. As both District forum and State Commission had dealt with issues in details, we do not want to reiterate them. Suffice to say that first Investigator Sh. R.K. Sharma on having investigated the claim submitted his report as early as on 09.10.1997 on recording statement of some witnesses including that of Veterinary Surgeon who had conducted post-mortem of dead birds. Second Surveyor appointed by insurance company visited site after about 6-7 months and submitted his report on 17.05.1998, over-ruling the finding so recorded by first Surveyor. He appears to have again recorded statement of witnesses including that of Veterinary Surgeon, who it is shown to us, retracted their statements earlier made by them. However, even though earlier statements were retracted by these witnesses, insurance company has not taken pains to put on record their affidavits affirming to have not made earlier statements to Sh. R.K. Sharma, Investigator. Though insurance company may exercise their discretion for appointment of second Surveyor, sound reasonings are expected to be assigned while discarding the first investigation report and only because the first investigation report is not suitable to insurance company, it is not open to them to throw them in waste-paper basket. Both Fora below, in our considered view, have rightly given due credence to findings of first Surveyor while awarding compensation. Against concurrent findings so recorded by fora below, no good reasons were assigned by petitioner for our interference in revision for unsuiting respondent. Having found no merit with revision petition, it is accordingly dismissed, but without order as to cost.
......................JB.N.P. SINGHPRESIDING MEMBER ......................S.K. NAIKMEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
