PURANMAL vs SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE PVT. LTD.

This revision petition has been filed by Puranmal, the petitioner against the common order dated 07.02.2011 of the Haryana, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short ''the State Commission'') in First Appeal No.18 of 2010 and First Appeal No.156 of 2010.

The facts of the case are that petitioner''s vehicle Tata 407 bearing registration No.HR-45-A-1555 met with an accident on 21.05.2009. The vehicle was insured with the respondent, Shri Ram General Insurance Pvt. Ltd.. The revisionist informed the insurance company about this accident and got assessed the loss by Metro Motor Private Ltd Karnal on 23.05.2009. The petitioner submitted the quotation for Rs.2,58,138/-..The Insurance Company appointed the surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs.1,28,757/-. The petitioner did not accept the claim of Rs.1,28,757/- as the cheque was in the name of the financier, allegedly the sister concern of the respondent. The petitioner then filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal, (in ''short the District Forum''), which allowed the complaint vide its order dated 26.11.2009 and passed the following orders:-

"Therefore keeping in view the financial loss caused to the complainant due to the delaying tactics adopted by the OP we allow a lumpsum amount of Rs.2,75,000/- with interest @ 10% from the date of this order. The OP is directed to make the payment of this amount within 30 days failing which the interest will be payable from the date of complaint. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost."

The appellant and the respondent both filed two separate appeals before the State Commission, which were disposed of by the State Commission vide its common order dated 7.02.2011. The operative portion is as follows:- "However, while passing the impugned order, the District Forum has not given the importance to the report of the Surveyor, which is as important documents to settle the claim of the complainant. The ratio of Sardar Gurmit Singh case (supra) is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. In this view of the matter, relying upon the report of the Surveyor, we dispose of both the above mentioned appeals by modifying the impugned order passed by the District Forum to the extent that complainant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,28,757/- along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date passing of the impugned order by the District Forum till realization."

We heard the petitioner in person and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records carefully.

The petitioner argued that the surveyor in this case was an interested party as he was appointed by the respondent and he had demanded the gratification, which was not paid by the petitioner and therefore, he submitted a wrong report. The District forum has also observed that the OPs have adopted delaying tactics and that the surveyor has not assigned any reason for allowing depreciation on many items. The State Commission has not assigned any reason for not accepting the report of Metro Motor Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner also stated that he has already spent more than Rs.3 lakhs in repairing the vehicle and that due to delay in finalizing the insurance claim, he has suffered loss of his business and livelihood as he could not earn from his vehicle being not in running condition. The District Forum and the State Commission both have not considered this aspect of loss due to loss of business and livelihood. Petitioner requested that appropriate compensation should also be awarded for this loss.

Learned counsel for the respondent stated that the State Commission has rightly given due importance to the report of the surveyor for assessing the loss. This is a settled principle that when the surveyor report is there no other report should be considered for assessing the loss. Learned counsel also cited the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, in Sikka Papers Limited Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Ors., (2009) 7 SCC 777 wherein it has been held that:- A." Insurance- Terms and conditions specified in insurance policy- Binding effect- Insurance policy not covering parts of machinery which were required to be replaced due to normal wear and tear-Held, Insurance Company while assessing claim, rightly excluded those parts- B.InsuranceAct, 1938,- S. 64-UM- Surveyor/Loss assessor''s report- Weightage to be givenHeld, Though not the last word, yet there must be legitimate reason for departing from report- No infirmity found in surveyor''s report and therefore held, Insurance Company rightly admitted claim as per the report."

Learned counsel for the respondent stated that depreciation is an accepted principle of allowing insurance claim and the surveyor has rightly allowed depreciation on various components depending upon their usage and life. Petitioner has got estimate from the garage of his choice that has given highly inflated estimate to satisfy the petitioner. However, the same cannot be allowed in the insurance claim. No shortcomings have been pointed out by the petitioner in the surveyor report and only allegations have been made against the surveyor with a view to prejudice the consumer fora. There are numerous judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission holding that the surveyor report is an important document to be considered for deciding insurance claim and it cannot be rejected without any proper reason. The State Commission has analyzed the case in details and has allowed the insurance claim to be settled on the basis of the surveyor report.

We have gone through the order of the State Commission carefully. The State Commission has relied on National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sardar Gurmit Singh, 2004 (III) CPJ 46 (NC), wherein it has been held that the surveyors are appointed by the Insurance Company and their reports are to be given due importance and that one should have sufficient grounds to disagree with the assessment made by them. Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 507 ,has also observed the following:- "31. The assessment of loss, claim settlement and relevance of survey report depends on various factors. Whenever a loss is reported by insured, a loss adjuster, popularly known as loss surveyor, is deputed who assesses the loss and issues report known as surveyor report which forms the basis for consideration or otherwise of the claim. Surveyors are appointed under the statutory provisions and they are the link between the insurer and the insured when the question of settlement of loss or damage arises. The report of the surveyor could become the basis for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured. 32. 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. We also add, that, under this Section the insurance company cannot go on appointing surveyors one after another so as to get a tailor-made report to the satisfaction of the officer concerned of the insurance company; if for any reason, the report of the surveyors is not acceptable, the insurer has to give valid reason for not accepting the report."

There are no documents on file to show that the surveyor had demanded gratification from the petitioner. The petitioner has also not shown that the surveyor had any inimical relationship with the petitioner. Hence, there are no grounds to believe that the surveyor was an interested party and that he willfully and purposely submitted a wrong report. No specific lacuna has been pointed out by the petitioner in surveyor''s report. Hence, relying on the above quoted judgments, we are of the opinion that the order of the State Commission is fully justified while allowing insurance claim on the basis of the surveyor''s report. So far as the loss of business and livelihood is concerned, the State Commission has dealt with this subject in a rightful manner and we find no infirmity in their approach in deciding this matter.

Accordingly, we find no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed. Both parties to bear their own costs.