Uttam Ram vs National Insurance Company Limited

This appeal has been filed by the appellant Uttam Ram against the order dated 28.11.2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Consumer Complaint No.22/2012.

On 24.04.2012, the house of the appellant/complainant was duly insured with the respondent against damages due to fire for a period of one year from 20-04-2012 till 19-04-2013. The double storey house was insured vide policy No.421100/11/12/3165000055 (Standard Fire & Special Peril Policy) on 24-04-2012 through an agent of the opposite party Sh. Joginder Kumar. On 27.05.2012, around 8 p.m. the house caught fire and was gutted in the fire completely. Household articles including jewellery and other precious items were also completely destroyed. In November, 2012, the appellant/complainant had filed a complaint before the State Commission seeking damages/loss occurred to the complainant's house amounting to a sum of Rs.41,90,900/-.On 28.11.2013, the State Commission decided the case finally wherein the State Commission directed the opposite party/respondent to pay a sum of Rs.7,77,500/- to the appellant/complainant on account of insurance money along with interest @9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint to the date of payment of aforesaid amount of money and also to pay Rs.25000/- as litigation expenses.

Hence the appeal.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that this appeal has been filed for enhancement of the insurance claim. The State Commission has awarded Rs.7,77,500/-, whereas the claim was of Rs.41,90,900/-. Learned counsel mentioned that the house was insured for Rs.30,00,000/- under the Standard Fire & Special Peril Policy issued by the opposite party. Thus, the claimed amount was more than the insured amount, therefore, the Insurance Company was bound to release atleast the insured amount of Rs.30,00,000/- . It was stated that the whole house was gutted in the fire and nothing was left. The learned counsel mentioned that the surveyor has taken the market value based on the statements of the adversaries of the complainant and therefore, the same cannot be relied upon. It was further argued that the complainant has submitted estimate given by an expert for reconstruction of the same house. However, the same has not been accepted by the State Commission and the State Commission has relied upon the report of the surveyor. It was further mentioned by the learned counsel for the appellant that the interest should have been granted from the date of occurrence. Similarly, the compensation and cost of litigation have not been awarded commensurate with the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant.

It was stated by the learned counsel that the surveyor report is not the final word for granting the insurance claim. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant submitted judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Pradeep Kumar, (2009) 7 SCC 787, wherein the following has been observed:-

"22. In other words although the assessment of loss by the approved surveyor is a prerequisite for payment or settlement of claim of twenty thousand rupees or more by insurer, but surveyor's report is not the last and final word. It is not that sacrosanct that it cannot be departed from; it is not conclusive. The approved surveyor's report may be the basis or foundation for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured but surely such report is neither binding upon the insurer nor insured."

Learned counsel further referred to the order of this Commission In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dr. M.M. Krishan, II (2011) CPJ 301 (NC) wherein this Commission has observed the following:-

"10. .......While we agree that generally the surveyor' report is an important document and is to be relied upon unless it is arbitrary and biased, in the instant case, there appears to be adequate evidence for us to conclude that the Surveyor's report was biased and the loss suffered by the respondent was not correctly assessed."

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company stated that the surveyors are appointed under the provisions of Insurance Act, 1938 and their report cannot be brushed aside without any cogent reason. In the present case, surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs.4,39,700/-, whereas the State Commission has increased this to Rs.7,77,500/-. Thus, all the concerns of the complainant have already been taken into consideration by the State Commission in awarding enhanced insurance claim. The fact of the matter is that house was built from stones and mud however for windows and doors some wood had also been used. It was further stated that covering roof was of tin sheet. The surveyor has assessed the loss on the basis of the construction of similar houses, which were verified from the local people and local people have confirmed the same. Thus, looking at the condition of the house, the construction cost was not more than Rs.5,00,000/- and the surveyor had rightly assessed the loss of Rs.4,39,700/-. The State Commission has already enhanced this amount to Rs.7,77,500/- and the appellant has filed this appeal only to extract more money from the Insurance Company, which he does not deserve.

I have carefully considered the averments made by both the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record. The surveyors are appointed under the provisions of Insurance Act, 1938 and their reports generally form the basis for settling the insurance claim. The report of the surveyor cannot be rejected without any cogent reasons. In the present case, the State Commission has already based its decision on the surveyor's report. However, the State Commission has made certain improvements on various items and have finalised the claim of Rs.7,77,500/-. In the appeal, the appellant has not mentioned any specific aberration or shortcoming either in the surveyor's report or in the order of the State Commission. I do not find any merit in the argument of the appellant that the surveyor has taken the evidence from his adversaries and on that basis the report has been prepared.

The surveyors are licenced and independent loss assessors and such kind of allegations levied against them without any evidence cannot be supported. The appellant has not filed any evidence in this regard and therefore, baseless allegations cannot be taken into consideration. In fact, in the house of the appellant, there can be no damage to the stones which are forming the major part of the walls. The only damage seems to be in respect of tin sheet and wooden structure. In my view, there seems to be no shortcoming in the surveyor's report. As the State Commission has already enhanced the loss assessed by the surveyor and no appeal has been filed against that order by the Insurance Company, I am not inclined to change the order of the State Commission. Clearly, there is no basis for any further enhancement of the award of the insurance claim. Accordingly the first appeal No.890 of 2013 is dismissed.