AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J
This writ petition has been filed to give a direction to the CBI to investigate into Ext.P2 representation and initiate appropriate legal action.
A helicopter (Augusta Westland 109 SP) belonging to the 5th respondent crash-landed on a marshy land at Panangad, Kochi, on 11/4/2021 and sustained heavy damage. The helicopter was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. A claim was lodged with the Insurance Company. A surveyor was deputed to assess the loss and damage in accordance with the relevant statutory provision. The surveyor reported that the helicopter has to be treated as a constructive total loss as the cost of repairs, replacement and other expenses would exceed 75% of the hull agreed value and hence recommended for settlement of claim and disposal of the salvage. The surveyor also reported that the insured has no interest to retain the helicopter and therefore advised to sell the salvage inviting tender. An amount of ₹48,42,50,000/- was paid to the insured. Thereafter salvage disposal procedures were initiated by inviting tenders. There was only one tenderer by name M/s. Prime Airward Private Ltd., Ahmedabad who quoted a price of `10 crores. The said tender was accepted, and the sale was confirmed.
The petitioner, a stranger, gave Ext.P2 representation to respondents Nos.1 and 2, who are the Director (CBI) and the SP of Police (CBI), Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kaloor alleging fraud in the disposal of salvage. It is alleged in Ext.P2 that it is mandatory that the insurance company has to obtain report from two expert committees including one from Leonardo Company and another Company from India before the actual damage is assessed and then only the insurance amount can be disbursed, but no such mandatory procedure has been followed. According to the petitioner, it has been done with a view to obtain illegal gratification by the officers of the insurance company. The prayer of the petitioner is to give a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to conduct investigation on Ext.P2 and initiate appropriate action.
The respondent Nos.3 to 5 filed separate counter affidavits strongly objecting to the prayer in the writ petition. It is contended that the allegations in Ext. P2 are frivolous and without any merits. It is further contended that the damaged helicopter was sold after inviting sealed tenders and duly following all the procedures and legal formalities. It is also contended that Ext. P2 representation does not disclose the commission of any criminal offence warranting investigation by the CBI. The locus standi of the petitioner has also been challenged.
I have heard both sides.
As stated already, the prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents No.1 and 2, who are the officers of the CBI, to investigate into Ext.P2 representation and initiate appropriate action on the same. I perused Ext.P2 representation. There is absolutely no material therein to attract the ingredients of any criminal offence which the CBI is competent to investigate. The commission of any offence is not even alleged in Ext.P2. The only allegation is that the damage of the helicopter was assessed without obtaining report from two expert committees. But there is nothing on record to show that there is any necessity to obtain report from two expert committees before the actual assessment is made and the insurance amount is disbursed. On the other hand, the records would show that in accordance with the Insurance Act and the provisions of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, a competent surveyor, McLarens Aviation, a Singapore based company, was appointed. They conducted thorough survey and consulted Leonardo, the manufacturer, and examined the aircraft meticulously. It was found that the cost of repair would come to `53 crores which crossed 75% of the insured amount. Hence, it was recommended to treat the case as a total loss going by the relevant provision in the insurance policy. Accordingly, the insurance company decided to treat the case as one of the constructive losses and decided to sell the salvage by inviting tenders. It is also seen that the salvage was sold after inviting sealed tenders and duly complying all the procedures and legal formalities.
Since Ext.P2 representation did not disclose any criminal offence, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 rightly forwarded it to the respondent No.4 who is the Chief Vigilance Officer of the New India Assurance Company. The respondent No.4 conducted a detailed investigation on Ext.P2. Their investigation also revealed that mandatory formalities, procedures, and inspections were duly complied with while assessing the loss and actual damage. It was found that there is no merit in the allegations in Ext.P2 representation. Accordingly, they have closed the matter. That apart, it is a pure and simple commercial transaction between the insurer and the insured. The petitioner is in no way involved in it. He is in no way connected with the aircraft nor its accident and settlement. He has not revealed any interest in the matter.
I find no merit in the writ petition and, accordingly, it is dismissed.