NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD vs AVINASH SHARMA

COUNSEL for the parties present. Arguments heard. In this case, the report of surveyor appointed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. from consolidated surveyors Pvt. Ltd. through Shri N.S. Sidhu is pitted against the private report of Sh. R.P. Swamy, Retired Assistant Engineer (Civil). This is a case where the house was gutted in fire during the subsistence of the policy granted by the New India Assurance Company (OP). Both the Fora have granted a sum of Rs. 2,36,240/ - alongwith interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 30.12.2006 till full payment. Both the Fora have awarded cost as well.

THE surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company came to the conclusion that the complainant had suffered a loss in the sum of Rs. 61,060/ -. The surveyor''s affidavit has also been filed. The report of Mr. N.S. Sidhu reveals that he has considered each and every item as it is apparent from his report. He has considered as many as 15 items detailed therein. It is well settled that surveyor''s report carries infinite value as per the case reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. and Ors., 2000 10 SCC 19], and in "D. N. Badoni Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2012 1 CPJ 272].

THERE is report of Sh. R.V. Swami. In his affidavit he has stated that he has experience of building of 40 years regarding construction, estimating and assessing Civil work. He retired in the year 1994 and is practicing as valuer of buildings and he is registered by MC Solan and TCP Department, HP. I have perused the entire affidavit. But, it is nowhere stated that he has surveyed such like a position earlier. It appears to be his first case. In Para 7and 8, he stated, which are reproduced as here under: "That the surveyor Sh. N.S. Sidhu has not touched all items of work damaged at site. He ignored various items intentionally to reduced the cost. Detail of all such items have been described in separate sheet, which is attached with my affidavit.

That the surveyor has applied "non -schedule rates" with remarks as "market rates" in his assessment of work. In case market rates as applied by the surveyor are to be considered in that event, as a matter of rule, detailed analysis have to be calculated. However, since all the damaged items are duly described in HP schedules of rates 1999 in that event market rates are not applicable specially in the absence of rate analysis. But, the surveyor deputed did not attach such analysis with his valuation."

This case is not supported by any solid and concrete evidence to dislodge the report of the official surveyor. Private Surveyor is an interested witness and much reliance without evidence cannot be placed upon his report. He should have filed authentic valuation and analysis supported by documentary evidence. It is difficult to fathom why the report of the official surveyor was rejected by both the Fora. The counsel for the respondent / complainant has invited my attention towards para no. 8 of the order of the District Forum which runs as follows:

"During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the OP -Company also did not assail this report on any ground. It is nowhere contended before us that vide this report the claim of complainant has been exaggerated to favour him. Therefore, there is no reason to discard this report Annexure C -4 relied upon by complainant. As per this report estimated cost of reconstruction of damaged top floor of the building of the complainant is shown to the tune of Rs. 2,97,300/. Therefore, we hold that the complainant is entitled to be indemnified by the OP -Company to total amount of Rs. 2,97,300/ -. The complainant has already been paid a sum of Rs. 61,060/ - by the OP -Company which was received by him under protest, therefore, the complainant is held entitled to net amount of Rs. 2,97,300/ - minus Rs. 61,060/ - = Rs. 2,36,240/ - to be paid by OP -Company."

A bare reading of this para goes to show that the District Forum has not listed valid reasons to discard the report of official surveyor.

CONSEQUENTLY , I accept the revision petition and reduce the amount to Rs. 61,060/ - which is already received by the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to any other amount. Matter stands disposed of. The amount in the sum of Rs. 50,000/ - alongwith interest accrued thereon already deposited by the revisionist before the fora below can be withdrawn with immediate effect.