ANIL KUMAR SINGH vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

THE present revision petition has been filed by one Anil Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the ''Petitioner'') against the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the ''State Commission'') which had dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner, in favour of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ''Respondent'').

THE facts of the case are that the petitioner who is the original complainant before the District Forum had obtained an insurance policy which interalia covered the risk of the complainant''s building, godowns and goods against cyclone, typhoon etc for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- from 28.04.1993 to 27.04.1994. THEre was a cyclone on 16.5.1993 as a result of which the tin shed of his godown was blown off and his godown as well as the Sal seeds kept therein were badly damaged. Creative Consultants at the behest of the petitioner carried out a survey of the damages and assessed the loss at Rs.1,13,000/-. When the petitioner put in a claim with the respondent insurance company, no heed was paid to it and in spite of several letters and subsequent visits to the respondent''s office, the loss claimed was not paid to the petitioner. THE petitioner, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and requested that the respondent insurance company be directed to pay him Rs.1,13,000/-, i.e., the loss assessed by Creative Consultants as well as Rs.10,000/- as compensation. THE respondent on the other hand have stated that the claim was rightly repudiated because there was no cyclone at Ambikapur on 16.05.93 and therefore, damage caused to the godown was not as a result of a cyclone, typhoon etc. as per the risk covered in the insurance policy. Also the petitioner did not pay the requisite premium for the coverage of the said risk, damage due to cyclone. The District Forum vide its order dated 19.07.94 accepted the complaint and directed the respondent to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.1,13,000/- with interest @12% p.a. The respondent thereafter filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was allowed and the order of the District Forum was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the District Forum to hear the matter afresh. The District Forum relying on the report of Creative Consultants again upheld the petitioner''s claim alongwith relief that was given to petitioner / complainant vide their earlier order dated 19.07.94. In appeal, the State Commission after considering the evidence on record concluded that a cyclone and typhoon had in fact occurred on 16.05.93 causing damage in the area including to the godown of the complainant. However, regarding the award of compensation, the State Commission has accepted the damage assessed by the surveyor appointed by the insurance company and not the report of Creative Consultants. The State Commission concluded that the complainant appears to be entitled to an amount of Rs.54,370/- as compensation with interest payable @9% p.a. as well as Rs.2000/- as costs. The operative part of the order of State Commission reads as under:- "The District Forum has relied upon the report of Creative Consultants. However, it is not clear at whose instance the said report of Creative Consultants was submitted. It is also not clear as to what is the qualification status and standing of Creative Consultants. The said report is also not supported by details of basis and findings thereof. In fact, it appears that the appellant / insurer appointed surveyor Sanjeev Saxena who has given a detailed report and has assessed the loss on account of cyclone / storm. The net loss assessed by the surveyor is Rs.54,369.95p. (rounded to Rs.54,370/-). It appears that the loss as assessed by Sanjeev Saxena should be accepted in preference to the to the report of Creative Consultants. Therefore, the complainant appears to be entitled to the said amount of Rs.54,370/- as compensation."

The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order of the State Commission on the grounds that the loss to the petitioner was under assessed by the State Commission and the interest awarded was also less.

LEARNED counsel for both the parties were present. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the surveyor appointed by Insurance Company erred in under-assessing the loss caused to the complainant. The loss incurred was correctly assessed by the Creative Consultant and its authenticity and credibility was rightly accepted by the District Forum. Therefore, the order of the State Commission needs to be modified and order of the District Forum be restored. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submitted that Creative Consultants on whose assessment, the District Forum had erroneously relied are not qualified surveyor and loss assessors and therefore, their report cannot be relied upon. The State Commission had fully appreciated this fact and relied on the report of the qualified surveyor appointed by the respondent insurance company. The report given by him is a detailed report and, therefore, both credible and convincing. Further as per the procedure in respect of settlement of such insurance claims, the surveyor and assessors are appointed by the insurance company who then gives a detailed report which forms the basis of settling a claim. Under the circumstances, the revision petition has no merit. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the evidence brought on record. We agree with the observation of the State Commission that a cyclone / typhoon took place on 16.05.93 which caused damage to the godown of the petitioner. We also agree with the observation of the State Commission that the report of Creative Consultants, who do not appear to be qualified assessors, cannot be relied upon. The report itself is perfunctory and lacking in specific details. On the other hand, the report of the surveyor appointed by the respondent insurance company, who is a qualified insurance surveyor has done a very detailed survey of the premises and then assessed the damage in respect of various items in the godown specifying the items that can be repaired and re-used and items that can be salvaged. Based on these facts they have concluded that the net loss is Rs.53,369/-. In view of these facts, we accept the assessment made by the qualified surveyor and assessor and uphold the order of the State Commission. The revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.