Haryana

StateCommission

RC/85A/2103

Shankar Woollen Private Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

13 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Remand Complaint No: 85A of 21.11.2013

                                              Original Complaint No: 34 of 30.11.2009

                                                Date of Decision: 13.07.2016           

 

Shankar Woollen Private Limited, Sector 25, Delhi-Sanauli Bye-Pass, Panipat through its Director Ashok Singla.

                                      Complainant

Versus

1.      United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, near LIC Building, G.T. Road, Panipat.

2.      United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office No.V, 68/1, Janpath, New Delhi. 

3.      M/s Rohit Kumar and Company Surveyor and Loss Assessors, U.B.-31, Indira Prakash, 21 Bara Khamba Road, New Delhi-110001.

                                                Opposite Parties

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri Sikander Bakshi, Advocate for complainant.

Shri V. Ram Swaroop, Advocate for Opposite Parties.   

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Shankar Woollen Private Limited-Complainant, has filed the instant complaint averring that it purchased Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy Exhibit C-1 (for short ‘the Insurance Policy’) from United India Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’), vide which machinery and accessories were insured for Rs.1,50,00,000/-; stock and raw material for Rs.75,00,000/- and building with fittings/fixtures also for Rs.90,00,000/-. Total sum insured was Rs. 3,15,00,000//-.   

2.      On 26^th July, 2008 fire broke out in the insured premises. Fire tenders were called and they extinguished the fire (Exhibit C-2). A Daily Diary Report (Exhibit C-3) was registered in Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat. On being informed, the Insurance Company appointed Rohit Kumar & Company as Surveyor. The surveyor inspected the insured premises and assessed loss at Rs.29,46,307/- vide report Exhibit C-4. Claim being filed, the Insurance Company paid Rs.29,44,355/-  to the complainant. Dissatisfied with the compensation granted, the complainant filed the instant complaint seeking direction to the Insurance Company raising plea that the estimate of the loss was to the extent of Rs.1,02,28,132/- and thus sought direction to the Insurance Company to pay the balance amount, that is, Rs.72,86,777/- alongwith interest and compensation etcetera.

3.      Upon notice, the opposite parties/Insurance Company contested the complaint by filing reply raising plea that as per the surveyor’s report, the complainant was paid Rs.29,41,355/- being the full and final settlement of the claim vide cheque No.507306 dated 01.06.2009. Since the policy was pledged with State Bank of Patiala, SSI Branch, Panipat, so the entire payment was sent to the bank which was acknowledged by the complainant. Thus, denying the averments made in the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.      The complainant in its evidence examined CW-1 Ashok Singla, Director.

5.      The Opposite Parties/Insurance Company examined OPW-1 Rohit Kumar, Proprietor M/s Rohit Kumar & Company, Surveyor & Loss Assessor/Valuers.

6.      Arguments heard and record perused.

7.      Indisputably, the Insurance Policy (Exhibit C-1) was purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties. Incident of fire is also not in dispute. The surveyor of the Insurance Company was appointed who submitted report Exhibit C-4 whereby the loss was assessed at Rs.29,46,307/-. The complainant was paid Rs.29,44,355/- through cheque for which Discharge Voucher was executed by the complainant. It was only thereafter that the complainant getting the cheque encashed filed complaint seeking more compensation.

8.      Onus was upon the complainant to prove the extent of loss and as to how the report of the surveyor was inconsistent with the loss. Except his own self serving statement CW-1 Ashok Singla, one of the Directors of the complainant Company, complainant has not produced any other evidence in support of the claim. Mere estimates cannot take the place of proof regarding actual loss. The complainant has not examined any expert in rebuttal to the report (Exhibit C-4) of the surveyor to prove as to how the report was wrong. The surveyor physically examined the spot and submitted report.

9.      It is well settled principle of law that the report of surveyor is an important document and unless and until it is proved otherwise, it cannot be brushed aside simply. Support to this view can be taken from the judgments cited as United India Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.  Vs. Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. & Ors., (2000) 10 SCC 19, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held that surveyor’s report is an important document and non-consideration of this important document results in serious miscarriage of justice.  

10.    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”.

11.    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.

12.    In view of the above, it is held that the complainant is not entitled for more compensation than already paid. The complainant has already been compensated as per the report of the surveyor. No evidence contrary to the report of the surveyor has been produced. Hence, the complaint deserves dismissal.  It is dismissed.

 

Announced 13.07.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL