United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs BURGIGUL PHOTOSTAT

-THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 20.8.2002 by virtue of which D.F. has allowed the complaint of the respondent company and has directed the appellant to pay Rs. 66,018.00 with 9% interest p.a. from six months after the occurrence. The case emanates from the fact that the complainant opened a shop under the name and style of M/s. Burgigul Photostat Chandura. He purchased a photostat machine with the assistance of bank loan and insured the units with the appellant. On 12.10.1993, unit was damaged by electric fluctuation and heavy loss was caused to the machine. O.P. raised the claim. Khalid Ahmed Buch admittedly was appointed as Surveyor by the appellant who assessed the loss at Rs. 66,018.00 when he submitted the report, O.P. appointed another Surveyor, Tahir Ahmed Shah in 1997, 4 years after the claim was raised and Tahir Ahmed Shah assessed the loss at Rs. 46,100/- after making certain deductions the Surveyor assessed the net loss at Rs. 28,280.00 which were offered to the respondent by the appellant and the respondent was asked to sign the discharge voucher in full and final settlement who refused to sign it. Hence the complaint.

O.P. has examined Branch Manager Mr. Rissim of the company and second Surveyor Tahir Ahmed Shah. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the respondent has rightly contended that the first Surveyor was deduted by the appellant on their own and his assessment was ignored arbitrarily. No reason was given for appointment of second Surveyor and second Surveyor was appointed after 4 years who has not inspected the disputed photostat machine even. Learned Counsel for the other side has contended that no deduction was made in view of the Exclusion Clause but has admitted that it was not conveyed to the respondent.

We have given our consideration to the arguments advanced before us and we have many a times held that first Surveyor''s report cannot be ignored on flimsy and ipsi dixit ground. We have perused the cross-examination of second Surveyor who has unambiguously admitted that he did not inspected the photostate machine and secondly he has admitted that the machine got damaged in 1993 but he was appointed a second Surveyor after 4 years. Not only this even Mr. Rissim, Branch Manager of the company in his cross-examination has admitted appointment of second Surveyor is not provided in the procedural manual issued by the General Insurance Company. He has also admitted that the first Surveyor was deputed by the company of their own. We are convinced that no ground has been made out for rejecting the report of first Surveyor. We have observed many a time that it has become a habit of the Insurance Company to appoint Surveyor after Surveyor in order to slash down the assessment of first Surveyor. We have gone through the impugned order. Impugned order does not warrant any interference excepting the rate of interest. The interest will be payable 3 months after the first Surveyor''s report. Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.