ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMAPNY LIMITED vs GULAM AHMED BHAT

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 20.8.2001 passed by the DF whereby DF has allowed the complaint of the respondent and has directed the appellant to indemnify the respondent by paying him Rs. 3,58,112/- as assessed by the first Surveyor Mr. M.K. Warikoo with 10% interest p.a. with effect from 2.7.1996 i.e. six months after the date of occurrence.

BRIEFLY stated the case of complainant/respondent before the Forum was that his residental house which was insured with appellant got gutted during the cover of insurance by the militants firing. The claim was raised. The appellant deputed M.K. Wali Surveyor to assess the loss who assessed the loss at Rs. 3,58,112.00 thereafter appllant deputed another Investigator Mr. Ishtiyaq Allaqaband in 1999 to investigate the matter especially regarding the insurable interest also. He submitted his report. Thereafter Mr. Pajnoo was appointed by the appellant to reassess the loss who reassessed it at Rs. 2,64,025.00. DF recorded the evidence of parties and allowed the complaint on the basis of report of the first Surveyor. Appellant/OP has come up with this appeal against the impugned order. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that Mr. Wali while assessing the loss has not acted fairly and had assessed the loss at higher side.

We have addressed ourselves to this point. We are inclined to agree with the learned Counsel for the respondent that the DF has rightly believed the first Assessor. DF has passed the reasoned judgment and based his judgment on various authorities of the Hon''ble High Court. Moreover we have also examined the file especially the report of the Investigator Ishtiyaq Allaqaband who was appointed by the appellant. This Investigator has squarely admitted in his report that they have enquired the matter and have seen that the insured house had totally been gutted. There was nothing on the ground to assess the loss. Investigator has further contended that three years lapsed no useful purpose will be served by getting the loss reassessed. Knowing this well appellant even then did an exercise in futility by appointing Pajnoo Surveyor who has reduced the indemnification amount by about Rs. 1.00 lac. It is considered opinion of the High Courts and the commissions that Surveyor after Surveyor cannot be appointed without any logic and Surveyor report favourable to the consumer is to be taken into account. Therefore we are convinced that the DF has passed his order on the report of the first Surveyor.

SECOND point raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the respondent had no insurable interest to the extent of total damage caused to the house equally belonged to his brother Mr. Jabar Bhat also. We have been taken to the records. There is revenue record of 1997 Girdawari issued by the Patwari on 1.3.1997 which clearly shows that the insured house was in the possession of the respondent alone and the house belonged to him alone. His brother has relinquished his share not only this it is admitted by the OP that the affidavit had been produced by the brother of the insured to the Surveyor stating therein that he had relinquished his share in favour of the respondent. We have gone through the investigation report also. Investigator appointed by the appellant has in unequivocal terms stated that brother of the insured has relinquished his share in favour of the respondent and has constructed a new house in the same No. Khasra in lieu of his share; in the earlier house which got gutted in fire. This all has happened before the occurrence of the incident so the contention of learned Counsel for appellant is rejected. For these reasons, therefore, we see no reason for interference in the impugned judgment which is upheld with the modification that interest will be at the rate of 9% from nine months from the date of loss i.e. 2.10.1996. Amount of compensation is also reduced to Rs. 3,000/-. The whole amount will be paid by the appellant to the respondent within a period of five seeks. Appeal is disposed of. Appeal disposed of.