State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Company Limited vs Ms. Guljit Chaudhri on 8 April, 2026
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
FIRST APPEAL NO. NC/FA/916/2023
(Against the Order dated 19th May 2023 in Complaint No. CC/397/2015 of the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi)
WITH
NC/IA/7425/2025 (EARLY HEARING)
NC/IA/1207/2025 (DIRECTIONS)
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
PRESENT ADDRESS - NATIONAL LEGAL VERTICAL, 2E/9, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION,
NEW DELHI- 1100 055
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
MS. GULJIT CHAUDHRI
PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O A-1/17, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI-110029 NEW
DELHI,DELHI.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH , PRESIDING MEMBER
HONBLE JUSTICE DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
FOR THE APPELLANT : SH. YOGESH MALHOTRA, ADVOCATE SH. SUSHANT
KISHORE, ADVOCATE
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
SH. SANJEEV KUMAR VERMA, ADVOCATE SH. S K PAWAR, ADVOCATE ALONG
WITH RESPONDENT IN PERSON
DATED: 08/04/2026
ORDER
JUDGMENT DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.
1. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case as stated in the complaint are that the respondent/the complainant/Ms.Guljit Chaudhri (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") has taken a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy bearing no. 361800/11/13/3300000051 (hereinafter referred to as "the policy") in respect of the property bearing no 465, Pocket V, Udyog Vihar Industrial Area, Gurgoan-1220215, Haryana for a period with effect from 20.05.2013 to 19.05.2015 (midnight) through agent Balram Singh Bhandari. The respondent is the owner/allottee of the property which was allotted by HSIIDC and was approved for carrying out the business of Clinical Research and Data Management. M/s Bioinnovat Research Services Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Bioinnovat") was a tenant in respect of the ground, first, and part of the third floors of the property. Bioinnovat was carrying business of clinical research and data management since its incorporation in July, 2005 and the property was applied for furthering the project of Bioinnovat. The respondent is the founder and managing director of Bioinnovat besides holding 50% equity. Ms. Sukrita Sethi who is daughter of the respondent is holding 47% of the equity. A lease deed dated 01.07.2009 was also executed between the respondent and Bioinnovat. The appellant/the opposite party/ National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") before purchase of the policy through its agent and officers explained and the elaborated services proved by it in relation to fire and other perilous incidents and further explained that claims in eventuality of such incidents would be processed in a prompt, efficient and hassle free manner. The appellant insured the building as well as fixtures and other structures elements under the policy. The respondent also purchased a similar policy in respect of another property bearing no. 774, Pocket V, Udyog Vihar Industrial Area. The respondent is a long standing customer of the appellant.
1.1 A fire was broke out on 20.01.2014 at about 9 pm on the first floor of property and the first floor due to fire suffered severe damage and the remaining portions of the property sustained damage by smoke and water during rescue operations. The portion of the property damaged due to fire was under the tenancy of Bionnovat. The fire could be extinguished by midnight by deploying three fire brigades including a large hydraulic fire engine. Due to fire almost everything on the first floor was burnt beyond recovery but there was no loss of human life. The respondent suffered huge losses including damage to air conditioning units, structural elements, entire furniture, fixtures, electronics, office stationary, documents, transformer cabling, generator cabling, glass facade, lift etc. The respondent promptly informed the appellant about the incident and also provided with the insurance policy and related documents for processing the claim as early as possible. The appellant also appointed surveyor M/s Cunningham Lindsey International Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the surveyor") and affected portion of the property was surveyed by the surveyor. The respondent after the fire incident immediately provided tentative assessment of the claim on 21.01.2015 but without actual investigation of the affected premises of the property. The respondent after physical examination of the premises submitted a revised estimate of Rs. 90,00,000/- on 14.02.2014. The appellant did not offer any claim to the respondent. The appellant has delayed the settlement of the claim of the respondent despite restoration of the damaged premises within 81 days with actual cost of Rs. 55,01,161/-. The appellant was duly informed about actual restoration cost vide email dated 12.04.2014. The appellant despite submission of actual restoration cost did not any offer any claim to the respondent. The respondent continued to be harassed by the appellant and surveyor by demanding documents and not settling the claim. The surveyor on 27.08.2014 sent an incorrect, wrong and biased draft of claim assessment which was protested by the respondent. The surveyor did not consider the actual restoration cost borne by the respondent. The surveyor miscalculated the actual loss and reduced the assessment only to 8.9% of the actual restoration cost. The Divisional Manager of the appellant in a meeting held on 29.08.2014 in the presence of surveyor also agreed that the draft estimate sent by the surveyor was not accurate and required revision. The respondent also visited to the surveyor on many occasions for expediting settlement of the claim of the respondent. The surveyor vide email dated 12.04.2015 demanded original rent agreement stated to be executed between the respondent and Bioinnovat, the copy of which was already provided on 29.08.2014. The delay in settlement of the claim caused huge financial loss besides causing mental pain and agony to the respondent. The respondent being aggrieved filed the present consumer complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") titled as M/s. Guljit Chaudhri V. National Insurance Company Limited bearing CC no. 397/2015 before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission(hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission"). The respondent prayed that the appellant be directed to pay Rs. 55, 01,161/- being the actual loss suffered by the respondent in the fire broke out on 20.01.2014 along with interest at 24% per annum besides Rs.10,00,000/- towards physical and mental agony undergone by the respondent.
1.2 The appellant initially filed the present appeal under section 21 (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with section 58 (1) (a) (iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The appellant vide order dated 12.10.2023 was directed to state whether the first appeal was being filed under old Act of 1986 or new Act of 2019. The counsel of the appellant stated that he would pursue the present appeal under old Act of 1986. Thereafter the appellant filed amended first appeal under section 21 (a) (ii) of 1986 Act.
2. The appellant filed written statement before the State Commission. The appellant in preliminary objections stated that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as it is premature and suffers from material suppression of facts. The insurance claim is pending due to failure of the respondent to submit essential documents which are necessary for the processing and settlement of the claim. The complaint suffers from suppression of material facts as the respondent has failed to disclose in the complaint affidavit the fact that essential documents requested by the surveyor and the appellant have not been submitted despite repeated reminders and requests. The complaint is misleading in nature as it fails to disclose the complete correspondence between the parties regarding the crucial issue of ownership of the damaged articles which is fundamental to establishing insurable interest.
2.1 The incident in question pertains to the first floor of the insured premises i.e. the property. The survey report dated 13.01.2015 reflected that the first floor appeared to be unoccupied and was consisted of reception area, cabins, MD office, conference room, and approximately 50 workstations. The respondent has claimed that the said first floor was rented to Bioinnovat which did not have any insurance policy in its own name. Bioinnovat is a separate and distinct legal entity and as such no claim can be paid to the respondent in respect of goods and articles owned by Bioinnovat. The respondent was lacking insurable interest. The respondent has claimed holding a 50% shareholding in Bioinnovat which further raised doubt about the bona fides of the claim and the true ownership of the damaged articles. The surveyor was suspicious that the rent agreement with Bioinnovat might have been created to get the insurance claim. The respondent was asked by the surveyor to provide proof of the tenancy between the respondent and Bioinnovat to ascertain insurable interest of the respondent over the damaged goods and articles. The respondent did not provide any rent agreement to the surveyor despite several reminders and the surveyor again on 12.04.2015 wrote to the respondent to provide rent agreement. The delay in settlement of insurance claim was entirely due to default of the respondent. The respondent deliberately did not supply the original rent agreement. Bioinnovat was not having any insurable interest or insurance policy and due to this rent agreement was created to get the insurance claim. The surveyor again on 12.06.2015 requested to supply the rent agreement but without any result. The appellant on 30.07.2015 wrote a letter dated 30.07.2015 to the respondent to provide proof of tenancy and details of vendor from where stamp papers were purchased. The rent agreement annexed with the complaint does not appear to be genuine. The surveyor submitted its report on 13.01.2015 and subject to the genuineness of the rent agreement assessed gross loss at Rs. 35,60,066/-. The appellant in reply on merits denied other allegations of the respondent. The appellant prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
3. The respondent filed rejoinder wherein reasserted averments as stated in the complaint. The respondent stated that the property was allotted by HSIIDC and the property as per rules has to be used for establishing a business of clinical research and data management. Bioinnovat was under close ownership of the respondent. The appellant allowed a claim of Rs. 34 lakhs without raising issue of tenancy. The appellant has caused delay in settlement of claim.
4. The respondent tendered her affidavit and affidavit of Sukrita Sethi, Director of Bioinnovat in evidence. The appellant tendered affidavit of Sh. Rajneesh Kumar, Administrative Officer (Legal) in evidence.
5. The State Commission vide order dated 19.05.2023 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned order") allowed the present complaint. The State Commission observed that the respondent obtained the policy in respect of the property which covered risk pertaining to the building, office equipment, AC, Gen sets, false ceiling and Hall glass and the appellant did not dispute said policy in the written statement. The State Commission also considered the objection taken by the appellant that the first floor of the property was occupied by Bioinnovat and no policy was issued by the appellant in favour of the Bioinnovat and due to this reason no claim can be paid to the respondent for the goods and articles owned by Bioinnovat. The State Commission observed that the respondent was owner of the property being allotted by HSIIDC vide allotment letter dated 18.06.2009 for purpose of Clinical Research and Data Management Project and Bioinnovat was registered with the Registrar of Company in the year 2005. The State Commission also referred lease deed executed between the respondent and Bioinnovat on 01.07.2009 in respect of ground, first, second floors and part of the third floor of the property and observed that the lesser was bound to keep the premises adequately insured against the loss and damage by fire, flood or all other usual risks and was responsible at its cost, to carry out all major or structural repairs in the premises. The lease deed was signed by the respondent and Sukrita Sethi as authorized signatory of Bioinnovat. The State Commission held that the appellant was not right in raising suspicion on the genuineness of the lease deed. The State Commission in arriving this conclusion relied on the affidavit of Sukrita Sethi wherein deposed that she is one of the directors of Bioinnovat which was a tenant in portion of the property as detailed herein above and signed the lease deed on behalf of the Bioinnovat. The State Commission also observed that the respondent is the managing director and shareholder of 50% shares in Bioinnovat. The State Commission also observed that Bioinnovat was under close ownership of the respondent, the onus of insuring the building as well as its fixtures furniture, fittings, appliances etc. was on the respondent. The State Commission also did not accept the contention of the appellant that Bioinnovat was not a consumer. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced verbatim as under:
22. In the present case, the opposite party has not processed the claim of complainant despite having been submitted all the documents and original bills by the complainant. It is apparent from the original bills placed on record by the complainant that she had spent a sum of Rs.55,01,161/-, on restoration of the damaged property. Further, it is not the case of the opposite party that the bills placed on record by the complainant, are not genuine and are fabricated. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed for.
23. Accordingly, the complainant filed by the complainant is allowed.
24. The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.55,01,161/- to the complainant, for the losses incurred by her on account of the fire that broke out in the insured property i.e. premises no. 465, Phase-V, Udyog Vihar, Industrial Area, Gurgaon on 20.01.2014 along with 6% interest from the date of filing the complaint till realization of the amount.
25.Further, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is also awarded as compensation in favour of complainant for suffering mental harassment and agony and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards litigation cost.
26. The opposite party is directed to pay the said sum within a period of 2 months.
6. The appellant being aggrieved filed present First Appeal bearing no FA 916 of 2023 titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. V Ms. Guljit Chaudhri under section 21 of the Act to challenge the impugned order. The appellant challenged the impugned order primarily on grounds that the impugned order is wrong, erroneous, contrary to law and deserves to be set- aside. The State Commission failed to appreciate that the policy was obtained by the respondent in her individual name whereas the business in the premises was being carried on by M/s. Bioinnovat Research Services Pvt. Ltd. Bioinnovat was a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and as such a legal entity and loss suffered by Bioinnovat cannot be claimed by the respondent. The State Commission has not appreciated that as per policy the risk location was 774, Pocket V, Udyog Vihar, Gurgoan whereas the actual loss location was plot no 465, Pocket V, Udyog Vihar, Gurgoan. The State Commission did not appreciate the surveyor report submitted by the surveyor. The State Commission has committed grave error in passing the impugned order. The appellant also challenged the impugned order on various other grounds. It was prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the consumer complaint filed by the respondent be dismissed.
7. This Bench comprising of single member who is one of us (Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Officer) vide order dated 22.10.2024 after considering impugned order of the State Commission, other relevant facts and circumstances of the case and rival contentions of the parties observed that the State Commission has given a well- reasoned order duly addressing all the contentions of the parties and found no reason to interfere in the impugned order. The impugned order was accordingly upheld and present first appeal was ordered to be dismissed. It was also observed that inaction/delay on the part of the insurance company in not settling the claim was contrary to the Clause 9 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders' Interests) Regulations, 2002.
7.1 The appellant challenged the order dated 22.10.2024 before the High Court of Delhi vide petition bearing no CM(M) 37/2025 which was allowed vide order dated 13.01.2025. The High Court observed that key issue with the order dated 22.10.2024 was that it was passed by the Bench consisting only of a technical member which violated Rule 12 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. The High Court with the consent of the parties set aside the order dated 22.10.2024 and the matter was remitted back with the directions to be heard afresh by properly constituted bench involving at least two members and decide as per law. Accordingly in pursuance of directions given by the Delhi High Court vide order dated 13.01.2025 we heard the arguments afresh without being influenced by any of the judicial observations made in order dated 22.10.2024.
8. We after remand have heard Mr. Yogesh Malhotra and Mr. Sushant Kishore, counsels for the appellant and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Verma and Mr. S. K. Pawar, counsels for the respondent along with respondent in person. We have also perused and considered the relevant records including the impugned order passed by the State Commission. We also considered the written submissions filed on behalf of the appellant and respondent.
9. The counsels for the appellant referred the factual background of the case and stated that the respondent initially submitted claim amounting to Rs. 36 lakhs which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 90 lakhs. The respondent revised the claim vide letter dated 12.04.2014 and tendered final claim amounting to Rs. 55.02 lakhs. The counsels for the appellant primarily argued that surveyor conducted a detailed survey and thereafter submitted final survey report dated 13.01.2015. It was reported that as per policy, the risk location was 774, Pocket V, Udyog Vihar, Gurgoan whereas the actual loss location was property no 465, Pocket V, Udyog Vihar, Gorgoan. It was also argued that the respondent obtained the insurance policy in her own name while the business was being conducted in the premises by Bioinnovat Research Services Private Limited and said company did not obtain any insurance policy. The surveyor without prejudice assessed the net loss at Rs. 22,47,648/- (Rs. 21,81,191/- to the Bioinnovate Research Services Private Limited and Rs. 66,457/- to the respondent/insured). The lease deed submitted by the respondent was not registered and was lacking in material particulars. The appellant vide letter dated 30.07.2015 sought documents to verify genuineness of the lease deed.
9.1 The counsels for the appellant emphatically advanced primarily two fold arguments. It was argued that policy bearing no 361800/11/13/330000051 covered the building for Rs. 4,15,00,000/- and furniture, fixtures and fittings with office equipments for Rs. 2,13,00,000/- in respect of the property bearing no. 774, Pocket- V, Udyogg Vihar-122001 for the period from 20.05.2013 to 19.05.2014. The alleged fire incident occurred on the first floor of the property/premises bearing no 465, Pocket V, Udyog Vihar Industrial Area, Gurgoan -1220215, Haryana and said property/premises was not covered under the subject policy. The counsel for the appellant also countered contention of the respondent that there was a typographical error in the policy bearing no 361800/11/13/330000051 and it was meant for the property/premises bearing no 465, Pocket V, Udyog Vihar and not for the premises bearing no 774, Pocket V, Udyog Nagar and argued that the subject policy was taken by the respondent on 15.05.2013 which was valid for 20.05.2013 to 19.05.2014 and the incident of fire happened on 20.01. 2014 but the respondent/insured never raised any grievance with regard to the property/premises insured under the subject policy and never sought any endorsement for modification or change of location of the premises/property. It was also argued that respondent/insured cannot be permitted to seek modification of policy after the incident of loss.
9.2 The counsel for the appellant also argued that fittings, fixtures and furniture forming major part of the claim belonged to company i.e. Bioinnovate Research Services Private Limited and do not belong to the respondent/insured. It was further argued that company is a separate legal entity different from its directors, shareholders and officers and further the property of the company is not the property of the directors and shareholders of the company. The company is independent juristic person in law and distinct from its members. The reliance was placed on TATA Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited & others V State of Bihar & others, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 111.
9.3 The counsel for the appellant further stated that surveyors without prejudice assessed net assessed loss at Rs. 22,47,648/- (Rs. 21,81,191/- to the company Bioinnovate Research Services Private Limited and Rs. 66,457/- for building) and thereafter argued that at best the respondent/insured had only 50% share or interest then share of the respondent cannot be exceeded beyond 50% in loss towards fittings, fixtures and furniture. The counsel for the appellant also defended surveyor report. It was ultimately argued that the appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.
10. The counsel for the respondent besides referring factual background of the case comprehensively argued that the appeal is barred by limitation and delay is not properly explained by the appellant. The State Commission has passed the reasoned order after perusing documents submitted by both the parties. The impugned order is based on the evidence on record. There is no infirmity, illegality and perversity in the impugned order which may warrant any interference by this Commission. The counsels for the respondent stated that the respondent insured two buildings bearing no 465 and 774 both situated at Pocket V, Udyog Vihar, Gurgoan from the appellant on 15.05.2013 which were valid for the period from 20.05.2013 to 19.05.2014 and thereafter vehemently argued that subject policy refer building no 774 erroneously instead of building no 465 which is the correct insured policy.
10.1 The counsels also refuted the objection of the appellant that ownership of furniture, fixtures and other insured articles belonged to the company and not to the respondent by arguing that the respondent is owner of both the buildings and the respondent leased out certain portion of the building bearing no 465 to the company Bioinnovate Research Services Private Limited and respondent is managing director of said company. The lease deed dated 01.07.2009 executed between the company and the respondent obligated the respondent to insure the building along with furniture, fixtures etc. The counsels also attacked the survey report. It was argued that the present appeal be dismissed. The respondent also submitted written argument on lease deed.
11. We have considered the primarily contention and arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant that the subject policy was in respect of the property bearing No.774 Pocket-V, Udyog Vihar Industrial Area, Gurgoan and was effected for the period from 20.05.2013 to 19.05.2014 while the alleged fire incident occurred on first face of property / premises bearing no. 465, Pocket-V, Udyog Vihar Industrial Area, Gurgaon and the said property was not covered under the subject policy. The counsel for the respondent countered said arguments by stating that the respondent is the owner of two properties bearing no. 465 and 774 which are situated in Pocket- V, Udyog Vihar Industrial Area, Gurgaon. The respondent insured these properties vide insurance policies both dated 15.05.2015 and were effective with effective from 20.05.2013 to 19.05.2014. It was also argued that in the subject policy the insured property is referred as 774 in place of the property/ the premises no. 465 which was affected by the fire on 20.01.2014. The counsel for the respondent also argued that there was no point to obtain two different policies in respect of the same premises i.e. 774 as mentioned in both the policies and it is a clear cut case of typographical error in the subject policy. The counsel for the appellant also argued that the subject policy was taken on 15.05.2013 and fire incident had happened on 20.01.2014 but the respondent had never raised any objection regarding the incorrect description of the insured property and never applied for modification or change of the location of the insured property in the subject policy.
11.1 The perusal of the subject insurance policy bearing no.
36180011133300000051 reflects that it was insured in respect of the property bearing no.774 with insured amount of Rs.4.15,00,000/- for building and Rs.2,13,00,000/- for furniture, fixtures and fittings. The perusal of another policy bearing no. 361800/11/13/3100000050 also reflected that it was also procured in respect of the property bearing no. 774. We are after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case also of the opinion that an insured usually would not procure two separate policies on the same date and for the same insured for the same period. It is correct that the insurance policy is always happened to be location specific but in present case it is appearing to be a case of wrong description of a property by a typographical error i.e. 774 in place of 465 in the subject policy bearing no. 36180011133300000051. We do find merit in the contention of the respondent that due to the typographical error and erroneously the property no. 774 was mentioned in place of property bearing no. 465 in the subject policy bearing no. 361800 11133300000051.
12. We have also considered the another contention raised on behalf of the appellant that as per the case of the respondent the property bearing no. 465 was let out to a company namely Bioinnovat Research Services Private Limited in which the respondent herself is the Managing Director with 50% share. It was argued that the subject policy belongs to the respondent while the Bioinnovat Research Services Pvt. Ltd. is a separate legal entity totally separated from the respondent. The respondent on the basis of subject policy cannot take the benefit out of the subject policy in respect of the property bearing no. 465. The counsel for the appellant referred the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case titled as TATA Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited & others V State of Bihar & others, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 111and also cited by counsel for the appellant wherein it was observed as under:
24. The true legal position in regard to the character of a corporation or a company which owes its incorporation to a statutory authority, is not in doubt or dispute. The Corporation in law is equal to a natural person and has a legal entity of its own. The entity of the Corporation is entirely separate from that of its shareholders; it bears its own name and has a seal of its own; its assets are separate and distinct from those of its members; it can sue and be sued exclusively for its own purpose; its creditors cannot obtain satisfaction from the assets of its members; the liability of the members or shareholders is limited to the capital invested by them; similarly, the creditors of the members have no right to the assets of the Corporation. This position has been well established ever since the decision in the case of Salomon v. Salomon and Co. was pronounced in 1897; and indeed, it has always been the well-recognised principle of common law. However, in the course of time, the doctrine that the Corporation or a Company has a legal and separate entity of its own has been subjected to certain exceptions by the application of the fiction that the veil of the Corporation can be lifted and its face examined in substance. The doctrine of the lifting of the veil thus marks a change in the attitude that law had originally adopted towards the concept of the separate entity or personality of the Corporation. As a result of the impact of the complexity of economic factors, judicial decisions have sometimes recognised exceptions to the rule about the juristic personality of the corporation. It may be that in course of time these exceptions may grow in number and to meet the requirements of different economic problems, the theory about the personality of the corporation may be confined more and more.
12.1 There cannot by any dispute regarding the legal position that a company / corporation in law is equal to a natural person and is having its own legal entity. The legal personality of the corporation is entirely separated from the shareholder. The property of the company is not the property of the Directors or shareholders. It is also true that the subject policy was obtained in the name of the respondent while major part of the property bearing no. 465 was in occupation of Bioinnovate Research Services Pvt. Ltd. as a tenant. Simultaneously, it is also came on the record that the respondent and her daughter were the major shareholders and in control of Bioinnovate Research Services Pvt. Ltd and the respondent was actual owner of the building as well as fitting, fixtures and other appliance placed in the property bearing no. 465. Technically it can be validly said that the respondent and Bioinnovative Research Services Private Limited are separate legal entity from each other. However the Consumer Protection Act is social welfare legislation and has been enacted to protect the interest of the consumers. To safeguard the interest of the consumer hyper-technical approach cannot be adopted simply to deny the benefits of the insurance claim on technical ground. It is apparent that behind the curtains the respondent was actual owner of the property / building as well as the furniture, fittings and fixtures placed in the said building. We after analyzing totality of facts and circumstances of the case are not in agreement with the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant that the respondent cannot claim any benefit out of the subject policy on the ground that actual occupier of the property i.e. Bioinnovate Research Services Pvt. Ltd. is a separate legal entity from the respondent. The arguments accordingly raised on behalf of the appellant are liable to be rejected and accordingly rejected.
13. The appellant also raised argument that the appellant to assess the loss caused to the property bearing no. 465 due to the fire happened on 20.01.2014 has appointed an independent surveyor namely Cunningham Lindsey International Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Private Limited as per Section 64 of the Insurance Act, 1938 and the said Surveyor was independent professional. The surveyor in final report dated 13.01.2015 has assessed the gross loss of Rs.35,16,066/- and net loss at Rs. 22,47,668/-/ It has been vehemently argued that the State Commission in the impugned order completely out looked the surveyor's report dated 13.01.2015 and awarded the compensation of Rs.55,01,061/- assessed by the respondent as cost of restoration of the damaged property. It is also argued that initially the respondent preferred a claim of Rs. 36,00,000/- which was enhanced to Rs. 90,00,000/- and thereafter the respondent submitted a final claim of Rs.52,00,000/- vide letter dated 12.04.2014. The counsel for the respondent has controverted the said argument and argued that there was no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Commission and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The appellant has failed to settle the claim within a reasonable time which is against the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (protection of Policyholder's) Regulations, 2002 and in particular Regulation 9.
13.1 We have perused the impugned order passed by the State Commission wherein the State Commission has observed that the appellant has not processed the claim of the respondent despite submission of all the documents and original bills by the respondent. The State Commission also observed that the respondent has spent a sum of Rs. 55,01,161/- on the restoration of the damaged property on the basis of original bills and their genuineness is not disputed by the appellant. However, we have noticed that the State Commission in the impugned order has not considered that the surveyor report dated 13.01.2015 which assessed the net loss at Rs.22,47,668/-. There was no justification for the State Commission to overlook and ignore the survey report dated 13.01.2015. The State Commission in the impugned order has not given any justification or any cogent reason for not accepting and believing the said surveyor report dated 13.01.2015 rather it was not even referred by the State Commission in the impugned order. It is accepted legal proposition that the surveyor report is not the last word and cannot be taken as a sacrosanct document but in the absence of contrary material on record the survey report cannot be easily disbelieved. Although the respondent has placed on record the original bills pertaining to the cost of restoration of the damaged property but the perusal of the surveyor report reflects that the surveyor in the report has considered the assessed loss after detail verification of the documents submitted by the respondent and accordingly assessed the net loss at Rs.22,47,668/-. We are of the considered view that the State Commission has erred grossly while awarding the compensation of Rs. 55,01,161/- on basis of original bills submitted by the respondent rather the State Commission should have granted the compensation in favour of the respondent as per the loss assessed by the surveyor in report. The surveyor report cannot be disbelieved or considered merely because of submission of original bills which were not subjected to any verification test. The impugned order passed by the State Commission requires modification in this regard. Accordingly, we after modification award a compensation of Rs.22,47,668/- instead of compensation of Rs. 55,01,161/- for the loss caused to the respondent on account of fire which have been broke out in the property bearing no. 465 on 20.01.2014 and rest of the conditions/compensation as awarded by the State Commission is maintained intact.
14. The respondent has also submitted detailed arguments on issue of limitation as there was delay in filing the present appeal. The delay if any stands condoned.
15. The present appeal in view of above discussion is disposed of along with the pending application(s), if any.
..................
DR. INDER JIT SINGH PRESIDING MEMBER ..................J DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN MEMBER SUKHBIR SINGH/Court-3/