Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs S.GURUCHARAN SINGH

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 23.8.2002 passed by the DF by virtue of which complaint of the complainant has been allowed and appellant/OP was directed to pay Rs. 99,874.00 with 9 per cent interest per annum 3 months from the date of loss and Rs. 5,000.00 as compensation.

SHORN of details, the case of complainant/respondent before the DF was that the complainant insured his residential house and secured a policy from 2nd March, 2000 to 1st March, 2001 for Rs. 6.00 lakhs. The said building was damaged due to floods. The damage was caused to the building, boundary wall, septic tank, underground sewerage system, compound retaining wall. Claim was resisted by the respondent. Appellant appointed Sai Consultants as Surveyor in order to assess the loss. Surveyor assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs. 41,449.00. It was recommended by the Surveyor that the claim was not payable so the respondent could not be indemnified because loss to the retaining wall was not covered. The appellant declared it ''No Claim'' by repudiating it. Complainant filed the complaint before the DF where the OP resisted the claim and got the loss estimated by Singh Designers and found the loss to the tune of Rs. 99,874.00. The claim was resisted on various grounds by the appellant but after taking the evidence of the parties DF passed the impugned order. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. We have perused the whole record. Learned Counsel for the appellant has raised various points mainly that the retaining wall is not covered by the insurance policy. It is an admitted fact that the compound wall is included in the building and we are in agreement with the DF who has held that the compound wall/retaining wall is covered by the insurance policy. It is because compound wall is constructed on the retaining wall itself and serves as foundation for the compound wall.

The main argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has appointed a licensed Surveyor who is empanelled. Against his report, DF should not have believed the estimate of the Designer who was appointed by the complainant himself. This argument finds force. It is the fact that the appellants first appointed Sai Consultants who reported damage is not covered by the insurance policy because the retaining wall is not covered specifically. Even then appellants have taken precautions and have sent the same Surveyor to assess the loss, then the Sai Consultants assessed the loss. If the complainant felt that the loss was not assessed properly he should have got it brought to the notice of the DF and DF could have found way out especially asking the appellant to appoint a fresh Surveyor. It is very difficult for us to accept a estimate got assessed by the complainant himself over and above the report of the Surveyor who had been held to be an expert in the matter by the judicial pronouncements including Apex Court. We are of the view that we should reject the estimate given by the respondent at the face of it but we have to scrutinize the report of the Surveyor as basis for awarding compensation to indemnify the complainant. We have compared the report of the Singh Designers which is found to be exhorbitant in certain items which have been estimated. Not only this Singh Designer have not deducted any amount for depreciation but at the same time Sai Consultants also have not taken certain things into consideration. They have not assessed the loss with regard to drainage system. While estimate got prepared by complainant with regard to loss caused to the drainage system is to the extent of Rs. 8,086.00 which we allow to be added to the amount assessed by Sai Consultants, Surveyors. Secondly, we are of the view that the Sai Consultants have reduced Rs. 5,717.00 as depreciation as 1 per cent per year for 12 years while it has to be estimated at 0.75 per cent only so we reduce this amount of depreciation to Rs. 3,000.00 only with regard to date of interest it will be given from 2 months after the receipt of assessment report of Sai Consultants i.e., from 16.2.2001. Compensation is reduced to Rs. 2,000/-. We modify the order of DF to the extent that instead amount of Rs. 99,874.00, amount payable to the respondent would be Rs. 52,252.00 and compensation payable would be Rs. 2,000/- only. The whole amount shall be paid to the respondent by the appellant within 4 weeks from the date of this order. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. Appeal disposed of.