KHAN TRADERS vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 30.4.2002 passed by the DF by virtue of which DF has directed the respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 34,812.67 as indemnification to the loss occurred to the insured shop of the appellant. Appellant was running a Kriyana shop. It was insured with the respondent. Shop was burgled on 6th/7th June, 1996 and the stocks in trade were stolen. The appellant filed FIR. Raised the claim. O.P. appointed A.A. Kirmani as Surveyor who assessed the loss which is not acceptable to the appellant. Hence the appeal filed with regard to quantum of indemnification.

APPELLANT has examined two witnesses and has given his own affidavit also in support of his claim. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the appellant has agitated that the Surveyor has not been able to assess the loss which actually occurred to the appellant. It is so because Mr. Kirmani is a Civil Engineer. He is not an expert so he was not in a position to go into the accounts. This point we have considered. We are not inclined to agree with the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Surveyor was incompetent. It is so because the Surveyor is empanelled in the list of Surveyors by the Government of India so we cannot dispute his expertise in this discipline. Mr. Kirmani has been surveying the cases since long so we cannot agree with the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Surveyor was not an expert.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the assessment of the Surveyor is not based on the ground reality. According to him the appellant has given stock statement and balance sheet to the Surveyor but the Surveyor has not appreciated the list of accounts. We have gone through the report of the Surveyor, it is a detailed one. Surveyor has given the details of assessment and has based the survey report on the list of stolen articles which was in the first instance given by the appellant to the police. We have considered the arguments of learned Counsel for the appellant. We are of the view that the DF rightly gone into the report of the Surveyor and has come to a right conclusion. We have examined the witnesses of the appellant also. None of them even the complainant has not touched the point as to how much loss and as to what extent the loss was caused to him. Statement of the witnesses of the appellant and the statement of the appellant is of general nature that the occurrence took place and damage was caused. What sort of damage was caused appellant himself is silent. For these reasons, therefore, we see no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.