JAYCO INDUSTRIES vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

APPELLANT was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent-National Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as Insurance Company).

UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that the appellant is a partnership firm and is engaged in running a ginning factory at Village Mitdi, Taluka Manavdar, District Junagarh since 1997. It had obtained an insurance policy to cover the risk of factory building, machinery and compound wall for Rs. 23 lakh and subsequently they were getting renewed from time-to-time and it was renewed for the period 14.12.2000 to 13.12.2001 for covering the risk of factory building for Rs. 15 lakh, compound wall for Rs. 4 lakh and machinery for Rs. 13 lakh with covering the risk of fire, earthquake, etc. There was an earthquake at about 8.40 a.m. on 26.1.2001 causing extensive damage to the property. Matter was reported to the respondent Insurance Company, who appointed a Surveyor, who assessed the loss and based on which offer was made to settle the claim at Rs. 2,13,500, which was not acceptable to the complainant as according to his own Surveyor he was entitled to Rs. 19,63,761.25 . It is in these circumstances that a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record, especially the Surveyor report filed by both the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 11 lakh along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation along with cost of Rs. 10,000. Not satisfied with this relief, this appeal has been filed before us. We heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at some length and perused the material on record. The only controversy is with regard to quantum of compensation to be awarded to the appellant/complainant. While the Insurance Company had offered to settle the claim at Rs. 2,13,500, the complainant wanted Rs. 19,63,761.25. based on the report of the Surveyor appointed by him.

We have gone through the record and find that according to the report of the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company, the building is repairable whereas as per the report of the Surveyor namely, Mr. Rameshbhai Jivrajani, the building is not repairable hence it is to be demolished for re-construction.

AS per provisions of Insurance Act and as per policy, the insurer is obliged to appoint a Surveyor if the claimed amount is more than Rs. 20,000, which was done in this case and based on the report of the Surveyor the Insurance Company offered to settle the claim at Rs. 2,13,500. On the other hand, there is the report of the Surveyor(s) appointed independently by the appellant/complainant, which has neither any sanctity nor backed by any law. The appellant wishes to rely upon the reports of Mr. J. Makwana, Mr. K.M. Trivedi and Mr. Jivrajani. Neither before the State Commission, nor before us, any evidence has been led that the building is not repairable, especially when this is the only basis on which the two different assessments have been arrived at, by the insurer and the insured. Since there is no evidence led by the appellant that the building cannot be repaired, we see no merit in this appeal for enhancing the amount awarded by the State Commission. The State Commission, in our view, has taken a just and equitable view, by arriving at this figure and taking into consideration that while certain parts can be repaired, the other parts would need reconstruction and if keeping in view the reports of all the experts and the reports of the Surveyor and keeping in view the local circumstances, if the State Commission has awarded Rs. 11 lakh, which in our view cannot be interfered with, as it appears to be just and equitable. It is not that the State Commission has completely ignored all parts to be reconstructed, but rightly has not allowed the complainant to reconstruct the whole building de novo.

IN the aforementioned circumstances, we see no ground to interfere with the well reasoned, equitable order passed by the State Commission, hence this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.