Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Compensation for loss suffered on account of damage by fire – Right of insurance company to appoint surveyor – The complainant obtained a policy of insurance for the risk of fire with the assured sum of Rs.85 lacs – The factory of complainant was engulfed in fire and he filed claim for loss – Insurance company appointed a surveyor who accepted the damage to the tune of Rs.54 lacs – Insurance company appointed second surveyor who reduced the amount to Rs.24 lacs – However, the insurance company appointed third surveyor on the basis of report published in newspaper that the police had arrested three persons for duping exporters – Third surveyor repudiated the claim – Grievance of the complainant was that the insurance company appointed one surveyor after another till such time it was successful in getting a report of total repudiation of the claim of complainant – Held: It is not open for insurance company to appoint another Surveyor till such time, it gets a report in its favour – The first surveyor was appointed by Head Office of the Insurance Company – The communication was addressed by the Head Office to the Regional Office referring to the fact that as a surveyor was appointed by it, there was no reason for Regional Office to appoint another surveyor – In view of said fact, the appointment of another surveyor could not be justified when a conscious decision was communicated by the Head Office of not approving the appointment of second surveyor – Still further, the reasoning given by the local office was that the first surveyor did not clarify certain points when clarification was sought for – The second surveyor had considered the report of the Canara Bank in respect of stocks statement – Such stocks statement was brushed aside for the reason that if said stocks statement was correct then there was no reason to show as to why letter of credit could not be materialised – The verification of the stocks by the Canara Bank which had primary charge on the stocks could not be doubted in the manner, the second surveyor has reported – Insurance company relied upon a newspaper report in which three persons were arrested for duping exporters – However, there was no such or similar allegation against the complainant – Thus, there was no valid reason for the Insurance Company for not accepting the report of the first surveyor nor there was any proof that such report was arbitrary and excessive – There were no cogent reasons to appoint surveyors time and again till such time one Surveyor gives a report which could satisfy the interest of the Insurance Company – Insurance Act, 1948 – s.64UM.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The first surveyor was appointed by Head Office of the Insurance Company. The Head Office of the Insurance Company has communicated to the Regional/ Branch Office as to why another Surveyor has been appointed. In view of said fact, the appointment of another surveyor could not be justified when a conscious decision has been communicated by the Head Office of not approving the appointment of second surveyor. Still further, the reasoning given by the local office was that the first surveyor did not clarify certain points when clarification was sought for. The said reason stood answered even in the report of second surveyor. Such surveyor had considered the report of the Canara Bank in respect of stocks statement. Such stocks statement was brushed aside for the reason that if said stocks statement was correct then as to why letter of credit could not be materialised. The Complainant had explained that it was on 15.06.2000, it has been communicated to the consignee to have inspection of the stocks before exporting the consignment. The consignee did not inspect the stocks which led to the extension of letter of credit up to 08.08.2000. The verification of the stocks by the Canara Bank which had primary charge on the stocks could not be doubted in the manner, the second surveyor has reported. [Paras 20, 21][1185-A-E]
1.2 The letter of credit was a valid document which could not be said not to be genuine only on the basis of reason that such letter of credit was not in favour of the Complainant when the order was placed on the Complainant by a Singapore based firm. [Para 22][1185-F-G]
1.3 In the FIR lodged on 6.4.2002, there was no allegation in respect of export by the Complainant. The allegation against accused was of duping the exporters whereas, there was no such or similar allegation against the Complainant. Thus, there was no valid reason for the Insurance Company not to accept the report of the first surveyor nor there was any proof that such report is arbitrary and excessive. There were no cogent reasons to appoint Surveyors time and again till such time one Surveyor gives a report which could satisfy the interest of the Insurance Company. [Paras 23, 24][1185-G-H; 1186-A-B]
Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 8 SCC 507 : [2009] 14 SCR
57 – relied on
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.