Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs P.N. SINGH

THE Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Limited is the appellant before us in this appeal which arises out of the judgment and order dated 7.9.1998 in Complaint Case No. 464/1993 on the file of District Forum, Dhanbad, whereby the appellant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 97,708.51 to the complainant in terms of the Insurance Policy in question. Admitted position in this case is that the complainant who is the owner of truck bearing registration No. BPR-9529 which was comprehensively insured with the appellant Insurance Company under policy No. 31/540701/17253. During the subsistence of the policy, the said truck met with an accident on 24.8.1992. Accordingly, First Information Report was lodged with the P.S. being Tepchanchi P.S. case No. 168/1992 on 24.8.1992 itself. Simultaneously, the opposite party/appellant Insurance Company was informed on 25.8.1992 regarding the accident. THE Insurance Company immediately deputed one Kanchan Banerjee, Surveyor and Loss Assessor. THE said Surveyor on inspection, taking into consideration the damaged parts, has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 97,708.51. Being not satisfied with the first survey report, the Insurance Company deputed a second Surveyor, namely, R.M. Chandrasekharan who has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 21,581/- and submitted his report to the Insurance Company. In turn, Insurance Company sent discharge voucher for Rs. 21,581/- which has been refused by the complainant resulting filing of the instant complaint petition.

ON being noticed, the Insurance Company appeared and filed its response stating, inter alia, that since the second Surveyor has rightly assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 21,581/- and accordingly discharge voucher was sent to the complainant but unfortunately he had refused to accept it. The District Forum after hearing the parties and taking into consideration all aspects of the matter, has passed the order as stated above, which is under challenge before us. Mr. Alok Lal, learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently challenged the order mainly on the ground that since the report submitted by the second Surveyor is a scientific one, the Insurance Company has rightly accepted the report. It is further submitted that the Insurance Company is well within its jurisdiction to reject the report of the first Surveyor and appoint a second surveyor. In support of his contention, learned Counsel has relied upon the decision in the case of Rajdeep Leasing and Finance Pvt. Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in 1992 (1) CPR page 73. It is further submitted that there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company since the amount as assessed by the second Surveyor has been offered by the respondent.

In opposition, however, Mr. M.B. Lal has supported the order passed by the learned District Forum and submits that the first Surveyor deputed by the Insurance Company has minutely examined the loss sustained by the insured after dismantling the vehicle and, as such, there was no occasion for the Insurance Company to appoint the second Surveyor.

IN the light of the rival contentions, we have considered the materials on record including the impugned order. Admittedly, the vehicle met with an accident during the subsistence of the policy and the first Surveyor was appointed who has assessed the loss after dismantling the damaged parts of the vehicle and submitted the report which is based on the vouchers/cash memos produced by the insured which are on the record. Further, the first Surveyor has also minutely examined the labour charges with respect to the different parts replaced in the vehicle. So far as the appointment of the second Surveyor is concerned, no reason has been assigned by the INsurance Company as to why the 1st Surveyor report is not acceptable to the INsurance Company. IN this connection, a statement has been made in paras 3 and 4 of the memo of appeal which reads thus : "That on receipt of the information from the complainant/respondent, appointing (sic.) an independent Surveyor to assess the loss of the damaged truck and after his investigation, the Surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 97,708.51 paise. That after the receipt of the first report from the Surveyor, another independent Surveyor, Sri R.M. Chandrasekharan was appointed by the appellant Company to reassess the loss of the complainant/respondent. On the basis of the survey report the loss was assessed at Rs. 21,581/- and accordingly a loss voucher for Rs. 21,581/- was sent to the complainant/respondent which he refused."

However, subsequently, it has been mentioned in para 11 of the memo of appeal that since the first report of Mr. Kanchan Banerjee was not acceptable to the INsurance Company a second Surveyor was appointed. We have gone through the report submitted by the first Surveyor who assessed the loss after dismantling the vehicle coupled with the various cash memos and vouchers produced by the complainant. In our view, there is no defect in the first report. No reason has been assigned for discarding the first report and/or appointing the 2nd Surveyor. We are of the considered view that the appointment of second Surveyor was only to deprive the genuine claim of the insured. Recently, it has been held by the Apex Consumer Court to the effect that when the first Surveyor has been appointed and submitted a report, there is no justification in appointing a second Surveyor. At the moment, we are not in a position to lay our hand on such decision. The respondent has also not produced before us such decision either. Be that as it may, the second Surveyor, no doubt, can be appointed but reasons must be assigned for rejecting the first report. In the case in hand, as stated above, no reason has been assigned by the Insurance Company for appointing a second Surveyor when the loss has already been assessed by the first Surveyor. On the basis of various cash memos and vouchers showing purchase of different parts as well as labour charges, we do not find any defect either in the report of the first Surveyor or any illegality and/or infirmity in the order impugned passed by the District Forum. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is dismissed but in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost.

AFTER the order has been dictated, Mr. Alok Lal submits that 12% interest allowed by the District Forum is excess which is required to be reconsidered since the accident took place in the year 1992. Mr. Lal, further submits that a sum of Rs. 21,581/- was offered to the respondent as per the second Surveyor report by the Insurance Company in the year 1993 itself but the same was refused. In the facts and circumstances of this case and taking into consideration the offer made by the Insurance Company in 1993, we reduce the rate of interest allowed in the impugned order from 12% (Twelve) to 10% (ten) p.a. from the date of offer till the date of payment. Appeal dismissed.