National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): Dinesh Singh (Presiding Member) while addressing the instant first appeal upheld the State Commission’s Order in regard to a claim filed by the insured with the insurance company.
The instant appeal was filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra.
Complainant Firm took an insurance policy to cover its plant and machinery, electrical installations and stock-in-trade. The premium was paid for the valid policy. In 2005, an incident of fire took place and the insurance company was intimated after which survey was conducted.
The complainant had claimed an amount of Rs 17,00,000 but the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs 1,54,500. Since the Complainant Firm failed to submit the relevant record for verification, as mentioned in the Surveyor’s Report. Hence, Insurance Company filed the claim as ‘no claim’.
State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 22-09-2015 allowed the Complaint at the loss assessed by the Insurance Co.’s Surveyor i.e. at Rs 1,54,500 and awarded the said amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
Complainant Firm appealed before this Commission for enhancement in compensation, specifically for accepting its claimed loss of Rs 17,00,000.
Analysis and Decision
Investigation and Survey by an insurance company are fundamental in determining the amount payable to the insured.
Bench observed that an insurance company is duty-bound to appoint its surveyor in accordance with the provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938 (Section 64 UM Surveyors or loss assessors specifically refers). A Survey cannot be disregarded or dismissed without cogent reasons.
Further, the Commission also observed that the onus,
[a] of showing that the Report of the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Co. was flawed and
[b] of showing that actually, in fact, the loss was Rs 17,00,000, was on the Complainant Firm, which onus it failed to discharge.
Hence, in view of the above discussion, the Commission held that the State Commission had passed a reasoned order.
State Commission’s impugned order was upheld and confirmed.[Wilson Home Appliances v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC 493, decided on 10-12-2020]
Advocates who appeared for the matter:
For the Appellant: Ms Manisha T. Karia, Advocate
For Respondent 1: Mr S. M. Tripathi, Advocate
For the Respondent 2: Ex parte
