NAGPAL ENTERPRISES vs Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd

COMPLAINANT M/s. Nagpal Enterprises has come up in appeal against the order dated 15th of March, 1995 passed by the learned district Forum, Karnal, whereby his complaint has been partly allowed and the opposite party-New India Assurance Company has been held "liable to pay the balance amount of Rs. 64040/- and Rs. 85621.43 as assessed by the two Surveyors with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition till this date." Relief sought in the appeal is for the issuance of a direction to the Assurance Company, to pay Rs. 83172/- alongwith @ 24% interest/damages and costs etc.

ACCORDING to the complainant they had got their stocks insured with the respondents against theft, fire, riots etc. according to the policy, which was valid upto 26th of July, 1991. In the meantime on the night intervening 28th/ 29th of March, 1991 theft took place in the premises causing a loss of Rs. 2 lacs. When the Assurance Company was approached, a Surveyor was appointed, who assessed the loss at Rs. 1,79,963.92. Since the Assurance Company was not satisfied with the assessment made by the Surveyor, another Surveyor was appointed, who assessed the loss at Rs. 85621.43. Yet another Surveyor, who was appointed later also agreed with the second assessment of the loss amounting to Rs. 85621.43, Out of this amount, the Assurance Company paid Rs. 64040/- treating the same as full and final settlement, which was however received by the complainants under protest. It was thereafter that the complainants invoked the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act for claiming balance amount of Rs. 1,15,923.92 alongwith interest at the rate of @ 18% per annum on the total amount of Rs. 1,79,963.92, which had been initially assessed by the 1st Surveyor. In the reply filed by the Assurance Company though the facts have not been disputed, yet the appointment of subsequent Surveyors was justified by pleading that the 1st Survey was only a preliminary one. The learned District Forum after appraisal of the evidence produced by the parties found that the assessment of loss made by the two subsequent Surveyors i.e. Rs. 85621.43 was correct and the amount of Rs. 64040/- paid by the respondent-Company was not accepted by the complainants in full and final settlement of the claim but it was only under protest. Therefore, the Assurance Company was directed to complete the payment of Rs. 85621.43 by paying the balance amount.

In the appeal before us, the learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that once the 1st Surveyor has submitted his report, there was no justification whatsoever for the appointment of two subsequent Surveyors. On the other hand, Mr. R.K. Bashamboo, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/- Assurance Company has brought to our notice that in fact the complainants were not maintaining any stock register and therefore loss assessed by the 1st Surveyor was only in the nature of preliminary survey based on no documentary proof.

AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties we do not find any legal infirmity in the detailed and well-reasoned order passed by the learned District Forum. It has been found as a fact and in fact admitted by the complainants appellants also, that no stock register was being maintained by them. In the absence of stock register it was in fact difficult for the Assurance Company as well as for the District Forum, to come to a firm conclusion as to what actually was the extent of loss caused by the fire, as no exact assessment could be made about the stock allegedly destroyed by fire. In such circumstances, the District Forum was only left to place reliance on the assessment made by the two subsequent Surveyors, who were agreeing in their conclusion. Therefore, we have no option but to dismiss the appeal and uphold the decision of the learned District Forum. The appellants may, if so advised, have their remedy before the Civil Court, if they have got some additional evidence to substantiate their claim. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.