National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Jay Durga Traders on 5 January, 2024
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 137 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 29/08/2018 in Complaint No. 77/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH ITS CHIEF MANAGER, TECHNO LEGAL DEPARTMENT, 25/27, ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. JAY DURGA TRADERS REP BY ITS PROP. MR. PAWAN KUMAR MORE, 14 A. CLIVE ROW, P.S. HARE STREET KOLKATA 700 001 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.),MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLANT : MR. J.P.N. SHAHI, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR. AVIK MUUKHERJI, ADVOCATE Dated : 05 January 2024 ORDER AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM, VSM (RETD.) MEMBER
1. The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act") against the Order dated 29.08.2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal ("the State Commission"), in Consumer Complaint No. 77 of 2014, wherein the Complaint filed by the Complainant (Respondent herein) was allowed.
2. As per report of the Registry, there is no delay in filing the present First Appeal, the IA/1301/2019 seeking condonation of delay in filing the present First Appeal is disposed of as infructuous.
3. For Convenience, the parties in the Appeal are being referred to as mentioned in the Complaint before the State Commission. "M/s Jay Durga Traders" is referred to as the Respondent/ Complainant and "Oriental Insurance Company Limited is referred to as the Appellant/Opposite Party (OP) or Insurer in this matter.
4. The brief facts of the case, as pe the Complainant, are that the firm obtained Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy bearing No.311500/11/2009/715 valid from 31.03.2009 to 30.03.2010 from the Appellant/OP. During the currency of said policy, an incident of fire took place at its godown causing immense loss. The loss was assessed by the Complainant as Rs. 2,93,15,891/-. The OP had appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss. After keeping the claim pending for long, the OP offered to settle the claim by paying Rs.2,06,61,278/-. In view of the poor financial condition of the company, the Complainant was compelled to accept the said sum. Despite repeated requests, the OP did not provide a copy of survey report or the computation made by the Chartered Accountant to whom the matter was referred to by the OP. Being concerned over the stubborn refusal of the OP to provide the said documents, they filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission seeking:
(a) Direction to the OP to pay Rs.51,15,968/- which is paid less, to the petitioner along with interest @ 24 % per annum from 28.09.2011 till the date of filing.
(b) Interest pendent lite @24% till actual date of payment.
(c) Interest @ 24% p.a. over the amount of Rs.2,06,61,278/- from 28.09.2011 till 09.10.2012.
(d) A Compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the mental agony, torture, harassment to the petitioner.
(e) Rs.30,000/- towards the litigation costs.
(f) Such other relief/s to which they may be to be entitled.
(g) All costs of the instant litigations and Advocate fees.
5. The OP/Insurer, in their written version, denied the claim and contended that after voluntary executing the discharge voucher, the Complainant could not claim further amount. After examining the survey report and that of the Chartered Accountant, the instant claim of the Complainant was settled by paying Rs.2,06,61,278/-.
6. The State Commission allowed the complaint ex-parte with following observations: -
"Decision with reasons Be it mentioned here that besides submitting WV, the OPs also filed Affidavit-on-Evidence, questionnaire in respect of the evidence of the Complainant and reply to the questionnaire of the Complainant. However, at the time of hearing, the OPs remained absent. Accordingly, the case was heard ex parte.
Besides hearing the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant, we have also gone through the documents on record carefully.
It appears from the photocopy of survey report on record that the Surveyor deputed by the OPs, after thorough scrutiny, including personal visit to the site, figured out the loss at Rs.2,57,77,246.00. As against this, the OPs paid a sum of Rs.2,06,61,278/- banking on the value reassessed by one Sri Subrata Bose, Chartered Accountant.
It is, however, not understood, what prompted the OPs to refer the matter to the concerned Chartered Accountant. In fact, it transpires from the copy of Chartered Accountant's report that, he too reassessed the value of loss at Rs.2,47,35,325/- and from the said value, the OPs deducted Rs.40,73,957/- on different pretexts without explaining the rationale of doing so. In any case, on closer scrutiny of such deduction, we notice several inconsistencies, i.e., OPs deducted a sum of Rs. 24,74,523/- for non-submission of valid licence, agreement with Kolkata Port Trust and Salvage; but under which clause of the policy such deduction was made, OPs did not disclose the same.
Again, it appears from the survey report that the Surveyor did not recommend any deduction applying average clause. However, applying said clause, the Insurance Company deducted a sum of Rs.15,97,363/-.
It is though claimed by the OPs in their WV that they offered the settlement sum based on the value assessed by the Surveyor, on a comparison of the survey report vis-a-vis brief calculation given in the WV, we find that although the Surveyor assessed the 'total value of stock at affected location' as Rs.3,13,56,373.06, in their calculation, the OPs considered the said value as Rs.3,04,87,552/-.
The OPs though got the valuation reassessed through a Chartered Accountant, it appears that Insurance Company is not permitted to appoint a second Surveyor. Regulation 9 (3) to 9 (6) of the IRDA (Protection of Policyholders Interests) Regulations, 2002 runs as under:
"(3) If an Insurer, on the receipt of a survey report, finds that it is incomplete in any respect, he shall require the surveyor under intimation to the insured, to furnish an additional report on certain specific issues as may be required by the insurer. Such a request may be made by the insurer within 15 days of the receipt of the original survey report. Provided that the facility calling for an additional report by the insurer shall not be resorted to more than once in the case of a claim.
(4) The surveyor on receipt of this communication shall furnish an additional report within three weeks of the date of receipt of communication from the insurer.
(5) On receipt of the survey report or the additional survey report, as the case may be, an insurer shall within a period of 30 days offer a settlement of the claim to the insured. If the insurer, for any reasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to the insured, decides to reject a claim under the policy, it shall do so within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the survey report or the additional survey report, as the case may be.
(6) Upon acceptance of an offer of settlement as stated in sub-regulation (5) by the insured, the payment of the amount due shall be made within 7 days from the date of acceptance of the offer by the insured. In the cases of delay in the payment, the insurer shall be liable to pay interest at a rate which is 2% above the bank rate prevalent at the beginning of the financial year in which the claim is reviewed by it".
In Ravindra Nath Fruit Canning Industry (P) Ltd. vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2006 (1) CPR 270 (NC), the Hon'ble National Commission held thus:
"This Commission has taken a consistent view that under Section 64 UM Insurance Company cannot go on appointing Surveyors one after the other so as to get a tailor made report to the satisfaction of the concerned officers....
Stringent action is provided against surveyor or loss assessor who is guilty of breach of his duties or willfully making of false statement or acting in a fraudulent manner, entailing cancellation of license given to him. There are ten sub-sections of Section 6-4UM which it would appear prescribe a complete code as to how a surveyor or loss assessor should conduct....
Scheme of Section 64UM particularly of sub-section (3) and (4) would show that insurer cannot appoint second surveyor just as a matter of course. If the report of the surveyor or loss assessor is not acceptable to the insurer it must specify reasons but it is not free to appoint second surveyor. Appointment by the insurer of a second surveyor itself would be a reflection on the conduct of the first surveyor. Surveyor or loss assessor is duty bound to give a correct report. If the insurer-Insurance Co. finds that surveyor or loss assessor has not considered certain relevant points or has considered irrelevant points or for any other account it has reservation about the report, it can certainly require the surveyor or loss assessor to give his views and then come to its own conclusion, but insurer cannot certainly appoint a second surveyor-cum loss assessor to counter or even contradict or rebut the report of the first surveyor.
(emphasis supplied)".
In Oriental Insurance Co. vs. Bhushan Lai Pandita & anr., CIMA No. 65 OF 2001, the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir held thus:
"Assuming what the appellant is contending is correct still then no interference is called for, in as much as, the report of the second surveyor, in law, could not be looked at by the Commission and, in fact, the Commission has not relied on said report, in as much as, appointment of the second surveyor, without the permission of the Inspector of the Insurance, was contrary to law".
Since the calculation done by Sri Subrata Bose, Chartered Accountant has got no legal footing to stand upon; no cognizance can be taken of the assessment made by him. In our considered opinion, the Complainant justifiably deserves the value assessed by the Surveyor, M/s Absolute Surveyors Pvt. Ltd.
Another issue raked up by the CPs is that after signing the discharge voucher and accepting the money, a claimant cannot stake further claim. We, however, do not think that execution of discharge voucher robs one of due liberty to stake further claim. Mere execution of the discharge voucher would not always deprive the consumer from preferring claim with respect to the deficiency in service or consequential benefits arising out of the amount paid in default of the service rendered. Despite execution of the discharge voucher, the consumer may be in position to satisfy the Tribunal or the Commission that such discharge voucher or receipt had been obtained under the circumstances which can be termed as fraudulent or exercise of undue influence or by misrepresentation. If in a given case the consumer satisfies the authority under the Act that the discharge voucher was obtained by fraud, mis-representation, under influence or the like, coercive bargaining compelled by circumstances, the authority before whom the complaint is made would be justified in granting appropriate relief.
The Complainant, in its petition of complaint vividly explained the circumstances under which it was compelled to execute the discharge voucher by the CPs. It is a statutory obligation of the Insurer to offer a settlement to the Insured within 30 days of receipt of the survey report. As against this, in this case, although the Surveyor prepared his Final Survey Report on 28-09- 2011, the CPs offered to settle the claim by paying a sum of Rs. 2,06,61,278/- in September, 2012, i.e., after nearly one year. Clearly, it was purposely done to compel the Complainant to put its signature on the dotted line - a clear instance of exercise of undue influence by the CPs.
In the light of our foregoing discussion, we are inclined to allow this case.
Hence, ORDERED the case stands allowed ex parte against the OPs with a cost of Rs.25,000/- being payable by the OPs to the Complainants. The OPs shall also pay, within 40 days from today, the sum of Rs. 51,15,968/- together with simple interest @ 9% p.a. over the aforesaid sum of Rs. 51,15,968/- from 31- 03-2014 till full and final payment is made, i.e, the Complainant may execute this order in accordance with law."
7. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellant filed this present Appeal no. 137 of 2019 with the following prayer:
A. Set aside the final order and judgment dated 29.08.2018, passed by State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission West Bengal, Kolkata, in CC/77/2014, titled as Jay Durga Traders v. Oriental Insurance and Ors.
B. Award costs in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondents throughout; and/or C. Pass such other and/or further orders as this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper n the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. In the Appeal, the Appellant raised the following key issues:
(a) The order of the State Commission is totally perverse and contrary to the facts and records and against well settled principles of law and is liable to be set aside.
(b) The Respondent accepted and received Rs.2,06,61,278/-, as full and final settlement of claim, for the loss caused in a fire. And these facts were well within the knowledge of the Complainant, who had given his consent in view of the terms and conditions of the policy.
Description Assessed Loss (Rs.) Total Value of Stocks at affected godown 3,04,87,552/-
Less: Stock shifted to other locations 44,94,659/-
2,59,92,893/-
Less: Dead and slow moving stocks 12,47,659/-
2,47,45,234/-
Less: 10% for non-submission of valid licence agreement with Kolkata Port Trust and Salvage 24,74,523/-
2,22,70,711/-
Amount after applying average clause 30000000/32318003*22270711 2,06,73,348/-
Less: Excess 10,000/-
2,06,73,348/-
Less: Reinstatement of premium 2070/-
Net Assessed Loss 2,06,61,278/-
(c) The Respondent is not a consumer within the meaning of the Act as the entire business is a commercial transaction.
(d) The Respondent made a concocted story that the words 'without prejudice' missing from discharge voucher, signed by them was in a tiff under mental pressure, for unlawful gain.
(e) Nothing is due and payable by the OP as the entire amount has already been paid. The Complaint was filed after due passage of time, without any bonafide on the part of the Complainant.
(f) There was no deficiency in service as Rs.2,06,61,278/- was accepted/received, after voluntarily signing the discharge voucher declaring "full and final settlement of all claims. The claim of signing it under compelling circumstances is false and unreasonable.
(g) The Complaint was not maintainable before State Commission as the total loss assessed was Rs.2,93,15,891/- which is beyond its the pecuniary jurisdiction.
(h) There is no fraudulent, undue influence, misrepresentation, coercive bargaining etc anytime by the Insurance Company.
9. Upon the notice on the memo of Appeal, the Respondent did not file any reply. However, the Respondent filed written synopsis.
10. The learned Counsel for the Appellant forcefully argued that after voluntary executing the discharge voucher, the Complainant could not claim further amount. After examining the survey report and in terms of the opinion of the Chartered Accountant, the instant claim of the Complainant was settled by paying Rs.2,06,61,278/-. He asserted that the Complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of definition of Consumer under Act because the company is running a business which is commercial transaction. It was further averred that the State Commission did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Bhagwati Prasad Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India, Appeal (Civil) No.150-151 of 2001, decided on 25.05.2006.
11. The learned Counsel for the Respondent reiterated the facts of the case pertaining to the accidental fire and the insurance policy in question and asserted that the order of the learned State Commission is appropriate and legal. He further argued that a copy of survey report was not furnished to them and it was violation of Rule 9 (2) IRDA Regulations, 2002. He asserted that there was no valid reason to appoint second surveyor. The insurer has not given any reason to disbelieve surveyor report. The Complainant relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Venkateshwara Syndicate V/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ann, in Civil Appeal No.4487 of 2004 decided on 24 August 2009.
12. We have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the Parties.
13. On the fire incident on intervening night of 13.02.2010 and 14.02.2010 being reported, the insurer appointed "Absolute Surveyors Pvt. Ltd." as the official surveyor to assess the loss. The surveyor submitted his report on 28.09.2011 and determined the loss as Rs.2,57,77,246/-. However, the insurer noticed certain inconsistencies and irregularities in the report, including missing details in the assessment of loss, prompting further investigation to determine whether the claim was genuine. Thus, further investigation of the claim by Subrata Bose, Surveyor & Loss Assessor on 02.05.2012 was done and assessed the loss of Rs.2,47,35,235/-. The same is made without considering the value of salvage as the same was declared NIL by the surveyor. It was further opined that this is a Limited Review Report based on scrutiny of the Survey Report of M/s. Absolute Surveyor Pvt. Ltd. as well as documents and records furnished subsequently by the Insured and is issued without prejudice to terms, conditions and exclusions of the policy.
14. Considering the Surveyor's report by Absolute Surveyors Pvt. Ltd and reassessed by the 2nd surveyor Subrata Bose, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, the insurance company reduced the net assessed loss of the Complainant vide letter dated 06.11.2012. The Respondent/Complainant contended that, the Hon'ble Supreme in the matter of Sri Venkateshwara Syndicate V/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ann, in Civil Appeal No.4487 of 2004 decided on 24 August 2009. Hon'ble Apex Court ruled that: -
"22. ... We also add, that, under this Section the insurance company cannot go on appointing Surveyors one after another so as to get a tailor made report to the satisfaction of the concerned officer of the insurance company, if for any reason, the report of the Surveyors is not acceptable, the insurer has to give valid reason for not accepting the report. Scheme of Section 64-UM particularly, of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) would show that the insurer cannot appoint a second surveyor just as a matter of course. If for any valid reason the report of the Surveyor is not acceptable to the insurer may be for the reason if there are inherent defects, if it is found to be arbitrary, excessive, exaggerated etc., it must specify cogent reasons, without which it is not free to appoint second Surveyor or Surveyors till it gets a report which would satisfy its interest. Alternatively, it can be stated that there must be sufficient ground to disagree with the findings of Surveyor/Surveyors. There is no prohibition in the Insurance Act for appointment of second Surveyor by the Insurance Company, but while doing so, the insurance company has to give satisfactory reasons for not accepting the report of the first Surveyor and the need to appoint second Surveyor."
15. Evidently, 'Absolute Surveyors Pvt. Ltd.' outlined the circumstances of the accident on 14.02.2010 and corresponding claim in its report after one year and six months on 28.09.2011 and determined the loss as Rs.2,57,77,246.00. About further seven months thereafter, on 02.05.2012, the Insurer reassessed the loss by second surveyor Subrata Bose, Surveyor & Loss Assessors. This report dated 02.05.2012 revealed discrepancies, missing details on damaged stocks, absence of fire incident records with local authorities, invoices with canceled TIN, VAT etc. Based on the same, the claim was reassessed. While the Respondent rendered certain justifications for delay and such investigation, it is essential that a policyholder should not be subjected to indefinite waiting, particularly when a substantial claim is at stake.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Kumar, Civil Appeal No.3253 of 2002, decided on 9.4.2009 has held that:-
"13. On the face of the vouchers and bills for parts as well as labour charges submitted by the complainant, all the three consumer fora accepted the complainant's claim and did not accept these survey reports. Pertinently, the vehicle was not even 2 year old at the time of accident.
14. Section 64-UM(2) of the Act 1938 reads: "No claim in respect of a loss which has occurred in India and requiring to be paid or settled in India equal to or exceeding twenty thousand rupees in value on any policy of insurance, arising or intimated to an insurer at any time after the expiry of a period of one year from the commencement of the Insurance (Amendment) Act, 1968, shall, unless otherwise directed by the Authority, be admitted for payment or settled by the insurer unless he has obtained a report, on the loss that has occurred, from a person who holds a licence issued under this section to act as a surveyor or loss assessor (hereafter referred to as "approved surveyor or loss assessor"): Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the right of the insurer to pay or settle any claim at any amount different from the amount assessed by the approved surveyor or loss assessor."
17. In the case of Sri Venkateshwara Syndicate (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed as under:
The assessment of loss, claim settlement and relevance of survey report depends on various factors. Whenever a loss is reported by the insured, a loss adjuster, popularly known as loss surveyor, is deputed who assess the loss and issues report known as surveyor report which forms the basis for consideration or otherwise of the claim. Surveyors are appointed under the statutory provisions and they are the link between the insurer and the insured when the question of settlement of loss or 17 damage arises. The report of the surveyor could become the basis for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured. There is no disputing the fact that the Surveyor/Surveyors are appointed by the insurance company under the provisions of Insurance Act and their reports are to be given due importance and one should have sufficient grounds not to agree with the assessment made by them. We also add, that, under this Section the insurance company cannot go on appointing Surveyors one after another so as to get a tailor made report to the satisfaction of the concerned officer of the insurance company, if for any reason, the report of the Surveyors is not acceptable, the insurer has to give valid reason for not accepting the report. Scheme of Section 64-UM particularly, of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) would show that the insurer cannot appoint a second surveyor just as a matter of course. If for any valid reason the report of the Surveyor is not acceptable to the insurer may be for the reason if there are inherent defects, if it is found to be arbitrary, excessive, exaggerated etc., it must specify cogent reasons, without which it is not free to appoint second Surveyor or Surveyors till it gets a report which would satisfy its interest. Alternatively, it can be stated that there must be sufficient ground to disagree with the findings of Surveyor/Surveyors. There is no prohibition in the Insurance Act for 18 appointment of second Surveyor by the Insurance Company, but while doing so, the insurance company has to give satisfactory reasons for not accepting the report of the first Surveyor and the need to appoint second Surveyor."
18. In the recent case of National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. M/s Hareshwar Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No.7033 of 2009 decided on 18.8.2021, 2021 SCC Online SC 628, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been held as under :
"17.......Therefore, in the facts and circumstances herein the surveyors report was submitted as the natural process, the conclusion reached therein is more plausible and reliable rather than the investigation report keeping in view the manner in which the insurer had proceeded in the matter. Hence, the reliance placed on the surveyor's report by the NCDRC without giving credence to the investigation report in the facts and circumstances of the instant case cannot be faulted. In that view, the conclusion reached on this aspect by the NCDRC does not call for interference."
"18. ... Having considered this aspect, the rate of interest to be awarded in normal circumstance should be commensurate so as to enable the claimant for such benefit for the delayed payment. There is no specific reason for which the NCDRC has thought it fit to award interest at 12% per annum. Therefore, the normal bank rate or thereabout would justify the grant the grant of interest at 9% per annum. Accordingly, the amount as ordered by the NCDRC shall be payable with interest at 9% per annum instead of 12% per annum. To that extent, the order shall stand modified..."
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khatema Fibres Ltd. v. New India Assurance Company Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 818, decided on 28.09.2021 has held that:
"32. It is true that even any inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law or which has been undertaken to be performed pursuant to a contract, will fall within the definition of the expression 'deficiency'. But to come within the said parameter, the appellant should be able to establish (i) either that the Surveyor did not comply with the code of conduct in respect of his duties, responsibilities and other professional requirements as specified by the regulations made under the Act, in terms of Section 64UM(1A) of the Insurance Act, 1938, as it stood then; or (ii) that the insurer acted arbitrarily in rejecting the whole or a part of the Surveyor's Report in exercise of the discretion available under the Proviso to section 64UM(2) of the Insurance Act, 1938.
37. Two things flow out of the above discussion, They are (i) that the surveyor is governed by a code of conduct, the breach of which may give raise to an allegation of deficiency in service; and (ii) that the discretion vested in the insurer to reject the report of the surveyor in whole or in part, cannot be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically and that if so done, there could be an allegation of deficiency in service.
38. A Consumer Forum which is primarily concerned with an allegation of deficiency in service cannot subject the surveyor's report to forensic examination of its anatomy, just as a civil court could do. Once it is found that there was no inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance of the duties and responsibilities of the surveyor, in a manner prescribed by the Regulations as to their code of conduct and once it is found that the report is not based on adhocism or vitiated by arbitrariness, then the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to go further would stop."
20. After the fire accident on intervening night of 13.02.2010 and 14.02.2010 was reported the Insurer appointed Absolute Surveyors Pvt Ltd as Surveyor to ascertain the claim. The Surveyor submitted a detailed report on 28.09.2011, including reasons for the accident and determined the loss as Rs.2,57,77,246/-. As the survey report revealed certain concerns, the insurer caused further reassessed by Subrata Bose, Surveyor & Loss Assessor after about eight months on 02.05.2012. This report dated 02.05.2012 revealed discrepancies, missing details on damaged stocks, absence of fire incident records with local authorities, invoices with canceled TIN, VAT etc. Based on the same, the claim was reassessed.
21. In Sri Venkateshwara Syndicate Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 8 SCC 507 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while the insurance company has the right to appoint a second surveyor, such appointment should be supported by valid reasons, and the insurer must give cogent reasons for not accepting the report of the first surveyor.
22. In the present case, there no valid reasons are stated for the appointment of the second surveyor. There is nothing on record to suggest that the first surveyor's report submitted by Absolute Surveyor Pvt. Ltd. on 28.09.2011 to be arbitrary or the loss determined is excessive so as to reassess the claim. In any case, the further investigation report dated on 02.05.2012 also did not reveal anything contrary to the scope of insurance contract and survey report.
23. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the considered view that the Order of the learned State Commission, West Bengal dated 29.08.2018 in C.C. No.77/2014 does not suffer from any illegality. The present First Appeal being FA/137/2019 is accordingly dismissed.
24. There shall be no order as to costs.
25. All pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
26. The statutory amount, if any due, deposited in the registry by the Appellant for filing the Appeal may be refunded as per law, after compliance with the orders of the learned State Commission.
...................................... SUBHASH CHANDRA PRESIDING MEMBER ................................................................................... AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.) MEMBER