National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Akal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. on 16 February, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER CASE NO. 150 OF 2010 1. AKAL ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD. Through Its Director,
Registered Office-2657, Gurdev Nagar Ludhiana - 141 001 ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. Through The Divisional Manager,
Divisional Officer No. III Kochhar Market, Model Gram, Ludhiana- 141 002. 2. CUNNINGHAM LINDSEY INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. Through its Executive Director, 27-A, 2nd Floor, Industrial Area, Phase - II, Mayapuri Delhi - 110 064 ...........Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
For the Complainant : Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Advocate For the Opp.Party : N E M O
Dated : 16 Feb 2015 ORDER
JUSTICE J.M. MALIK
1. This is yet another case filed in respect of claim regarding insurance policies. The case swirls round the "Discharge Vouchers", in full and final settlement of the claim. The duty casts upon the Commission is to find out, 'whether, these are voluntarily executed/ of complainant's own volition or by force, threat, coercion, misrepresentation or fraud?.
2. Akal Electronics Pvt. Ltd., the complainant is a manufacturer of transformers, based in Ludhiana, for the last 11 years. It had purchased three 'Standard Fire and Special Perils' policies from the National Insurance Co. Ltd., OP1, in the sum of ₹ 2,50,00,000/-, ₹6,00,00,000/- and ₹ 40,00,000/-, respectively. A devastating fire occurred in the factory of the complainant, on 07.08.2008 at around 5.00 hrs. Fire- fighting operations continued till 9.30AM. The fire caused damage to the working hall shed, finished stock, semi-finished stock and raw materials, such as transformers, core-coil assembly, core assembly, HT/LT coils, etc. Copy of the FIR has been placed on record as Annexure P2.
3. On being apprised of this fact, by the complainant, the OP1 appointed Cunningham Lindsey International Pvt. Ltd., OP2 as its Surveyor to assess the loss. The Surveyor visited the spot and undertook physical weighment of the large quantity of work in progress and the stock which were damaged. However, the Surveyor disallowed the claim of the complainant to the extent of almost 75% of the claim without any basis and allowed a claim of ₹ 2,79,22,550/- only. Copy of the Surveyor's report has been annexed as Annexure P4. The complainant was dissatisfied with the Surveyor's report. According to it, its Trading Account, as on 06.08.2008, is as under :-
"Akal Electrical Pvt. Ltd.
Trading Account as on 06.08.2008
Particulars
Amount
Particulars
Amount
Opening Stock
Raw Material
Work-in-process
Store & Spares
Scrap
Purchases
Store & Scrap
Power & Fuel
Testing Charges
Freight & Octroi
Machinery Repair
Job work
Wages
Generator
Expenses
Depreciation on
machinery
Gross Profit
2,463,139.00
55,170,121.00
1,059,900.00
4,207,660.00
67,097,030.00
51,039,157.00
3,560,486.00
227,893.00
83,963.00
618.019.00
12,227.00
20,201.00
557,707.00
164,233.00
61,257.00
2,535,576.00
Sales
Less : Excise Duty
Closing Stock
Raw material
Work-in-process
Finished goods
Stores & Spares
Scrap
Theft
46,550.932.00
5,610,803.00
71,693,743.00
10,619,127.00
1,870,250.00
454,500.00
-------------------
50,940,129.00 84,637,620.00 400,000.00 TOTAL 125,977,749.00 TOTAL 125,977,749.00 "Akal Electrical Pvt. Ltd.
Trading Account as on 07.08.2008 Particulars Amount Particulars Amount Opening Stock Raw Material Work-in-process Finished goods Scrap Purchases Add:
Excise Duty Modvat Reversed Additional Duty Reversed Vat reversed Foreign exchange Currency fluctuation Store & Spare Power & Fuel Testing Charges Freight & Octroi Machinery Repair Job work Wages Generator Expenses Depreciation on Machinery Gross Profit 2,463,139.00 55,170,121.00 4,196,210.00 4,207,660.00 67,097,030.00 51,039,157.00 5,985,312.00 1,044,142.00 1,009,728.00 640,447.00 3,560,486.00 227,893.00 83,963.00 618,019.00 11,227.00 20,201.00 557,707.00 164,233.00 61,257.00 2,535,576.00 Sales Less : Excise Duty Closing Stock Raw material Work-in-process Finished goods Stores & Spares Scrap Closing Stock Destroyed Work-in-process Finished goods Stores & Spares Add:
Excise Duty Modvat Reserved Additional Duty Modvat Reserved Vat CreditReversed Foreign exchange Fluctuation Theft 46,550.932.00 5,610,803.00 13,089,053.00 326,579.00 661,500.00 454,500.00 58,604,690.00 10,292,548.00 1,208,750.00 50,940,129.00 14,531,632.00 70,105,988.00 5,985,312.00 1,044,142.00 1,009,728.00 640,447.00 400,000.00 TOTAL 134,656,378.00 TOTAL 134,657,378.00 From the above, it is evident that due to the fire, an whooping loss of approximately 11 crores have occurred".
4. The main grouse of the complainant is that the Surveyor submitted the final report on 23.07.2009, almost after eleven months of the occurrence of the incident. The complainant fully co-operated with the Surveyor and promptly submitted the documents. The Surveyor whimsically depreciated the loss to the extent of 75% without any basis. It was pleaded that even assuming though not admitting that the cost of reprocessing as provided by the Surveyor is Rs.8/- per kg, in that event, the complainant is entitled to receive a sum of ₹ 5,35,733.70. Again, the value of damaged goods not received amounts to ₹4,09,42,802.22. In view of the above, the total amount not received amounts to ₹ 3,58,41,010/-, exclusive of salvage value calculated to be ₹56,37,525.49.
5. Due to fire, there was total cessation of work for a period of one-and-a-half months and the first sale was resumed on 18th September, and that too very candidly. To add to the agony of the complainant, the OP1 issued three cheques dated 09.04.2010, in the sum of ₹88,46,973/-, ₹ 1,32,70,459/- and ₹ 58,05,118/-, respectively, after or by any general circular by the company itself, the rate of depreciation should be applied reasonably.
6. The present complaint was filed on 04.08.2010. Thereafter, the complaint was amended vide order of this Commission, dated 18.11.2011 and the claim was reduced from ₹3,58,41,010 to ₹3,12,18,652/-. The reliefs are reproduced here, as under :-
"a) For that the respondent No.1 is highly deficient in providing services as promised.
b) For that the respondent No.2 had no authority under any statutory norms or otherwise to disallow almost 70% of the claim based on concrete evidence.
c) For that the claim was based on the respondent's own process of evaluation and hence the respondent without any rhyme or reason could not have disallowed the claim to such extent.
d) For that the action of the respondent No.1 is illegal as it has statutory as well as contractual obligation to indemnify the loss caused.
e) For that the insurance company has not repudiated the claim made by the complainant as not admissible at the time of its submission.
f) For that the respondent has disallowed the claim which was based on physical weighment of the damaged goods without any basis whatsoever.
g) For that it has been observed by this Hon'ble Commission in a catena of judgments that in the absence of either statutory norms or by the standard guidelines laid down by the Tariff Advisory Committee or by any general circular by the company itself the rate of depreciation should be applied reasonably.
h) For that inordinate delay on the part of the surveyor in submitting the report has adversely affected the rights of the complainant as well as the authenticity of the report".
DEFENCE :
7. The Insurance Company-OP1, listed the following defences in support of its case. It is alleged that the complainant has kept the material facts under the hat. The complainant has not disclosed that it had accepted vide letter dated 18.11.2009, a sum of ₹ 2,79,82,286/- as full and final settlement, towards the loss sustained by it. The complainant voluntarily and unequivocally signed three different receipts after receiving the said full and final settlement amount towards their claim without any protest and prejudice. Therefore, the complainant, after accepting the said amount towards the full and final settlement for its claim, after expiry of such belated time, cannot, at this stage, rise from slumber and seek the claim, which, in law, is not permissible. Copies of the settlement receipts have been placed on record as Annexure R-1 (colly).
8. As a matter of fact, the complainant had left one or two of its ovens in the working condition on the occurrence night, which ultimately resulted /led to causing of fire and thereafter loss. The report submitted by the Surveyor is fully justifiable and is self-explanatory which requires no further elaboration or justification as is clear by admission made by the complainant in its letter dated 30.06.2009. Copies of the said documents have been placed on record as Annexure R-2 (colly). The complainant has not alleged any deficiency on the part of the OP1. The report submitted by the Surveyor, who is an independent person and is competent to survey such kind of incident and is duly accredited and approved by the IRDA. It further referred to an authority reported in General Assurance Society Vs. Chandumull Jain & Anr., AIR 1966 SC 1644.
9. It is explained that in a contract of insurance there is a requirement of 'uberrima fide, i.e., 'good faith', on the part of the assured and the contract is likely to construe 'contra proferentem' that is against the company in case of ambiguity or doubt. The complainant failed to provide correct details and figures and has also misguided the insurance company by giving false and erroneous description of the facts. Due to non-disclosure of material facts, the present complaint is liable to be rejected as per clause 7(n) of the IRDA Guidelines on General Insurance Policy. The claim made by the complainant is based upon non-disclosure of material facts. It transpired that during the Surveyor's visit, that "each 50KVA transformer had a requirement of 107 kg of laminates. There were 1400 transformers for which laminates were cut, as revealed by the insured. Total rejection worked out to 149103.8kg. the claim dodged against this item was 198805 kg. The rejected quantity therefore worked out as 75%". This clearly depicts misrepresentation and mis-description of the facts furnished to the insurance company, only to gain undue advantage. All the other allegations have been denied.
SUBMISSIONS :
10. We have heard the counsel for the complainant. Counsel for the OP did not appear on 19.11.2014, on which date, the following order was passed :-
"Counsel for the complainant heard for a while. Counsel for the Opposite Parties is not appearing since the last 2-3 dates. He comes during the lunch hour and gets his attendance marked. It is 1-15 P.M. It is hereby directed that his attendance be not marked, except, with the permission of the Bench.
The matter is adjourned to 20.01.2015".
11. On 20.01.2015, counsel for the OP did not attend the Commission.
12. We have perused the written submissions filed by the complainant. It is explained that the complainant had suffered whooping loss in the sum of ₹ 11.00 crores (approx.). Fire call report, Ex.CW1/2 has been placed on record. The police report registered at Police Post Dohra, Police Station, Payal, Punjab, dated 07.08.2008 was proved on record as Ex. CW1/3. Again, the Auditor's certified copy of the complainant's Trading Account dated 06.08.2008 and 07.08.2008 have been placed on record as Ex. CW1/4 & CW1/5. It was argued that the complainant had submitted all the documents as required by the Surveyor.
13. It is further submitted by the counsel for the complainant that in the compelling circumstances, when the Bank's overdraft facility of the company was also existing, the complainant sent a letter of acceptance. The complainant had claimed a sum of ₹ 8,63,41,930/-, but they were given only one-fourth of it, amounting to ₹ 2,79,22,550/-. Copy of the surveyor report was not furnished to the complainant. The complainant then invoked the Right to Information Act against the OP1 on 09.06.2010 for release of a copy of the surveyor's report. OP1, on 26.06.2010 being compelled by the statutory provision, supplied a copy of the surveyor's report to the complainant.
14. The complainant has enumerated a number of objections towards the report of the Surveyor, which are mentioned here, as under :-
The complainant by 12th November, 2008 has submitted all the requisite documents demanded by the opposite party No. 2 on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 on behalf of opposite party No. 1. In spite of the same, the surveyor report was submitted belatedly on 23rd July, 2009.
The Surveyor whimsically deducted quantity as per weighting slip/physically and quantity not admitted as damage of flowing stock:-
Type of Stock Quantity not admitted as damaged Channel 16236.71 C.R.G.O. 149103.8 C.R. COIL & SHEETS50730.0
The Surveyor had hypothetically deducted almost 75% of the quantity as not admitted as damages without any basis and only allowed approx. 25% of the same.Hence the computation of loss as per physical inventory was admittedly wrongly made causing direct loss to the complainant.
TRANSFORMER OIL in physical inventory report, the physical weighment is shown as 3390 Ltrs. which is far from imagination because when fire started the Oil kept on flowing and added to the fire, therefore, it was not possible to physically weight the quantity left out. Thus, the Surveyor negligently acted by not taking the quantity of this oil as 33925 Ltrs. On the basis of the documentary claim bill, causing loss of 33925 Ltrs. which was unaccounted for.
Certain materials were not being taken into consideration without any valid reason. The particulars of stocks are as under:
Material Submitted Claim bill weight Physically verified weight Differnece Balance Fire loss CRGO 2014528KG 198805 KG 5723 KG CRGO 36760kg 34306kg 2454 kg Aluminium 108275 91534 16741 Thus, the complainant suffered a total loss of Rs.45,77,963/- because of not allowing C.R.G.O. quantity 5723 @ 175.78 causing loss of Rs.10,05,988/- C.R.G.O.*** 2554 @ 175.78 causing loss of Rs.4,31,364/- ; Aluminium 16741 @ 187.6 causing loss of Rs. 31,40,611/-.
v. The Surveyor had taken low rate for settling the claim of material like Transformer oil at Rs.74.99, C.R.G.O...at Rs. 175.78 and Aluminium is 187.6. The actual rate of C.R.G.O. and C.R.G.O**** is Rs. 162/- per kg. and Rs. 250/- per kg. respectively. Presuming the rate allowed by the Surveyor to be correct even then the complainant was not compensated respectively i.e. the complainant was not paid Rs.22,89,819/- towards Transformer Oil, Rs.2,80,94,346/- towards C.R.G.O. and Rs. 4,31,364/- towards C.R.G.O****.
vi. The Surveyor has not considered the stock lying for a purchase order for export order and considered it as a scrap. The certified and audited copy of the claim bill for the loss against stock destroyed in fire is Ex. CW 1/12.
vii. The Surveyor wrongly estimated the Scrap value because the estimated scrap value of the loss against stock destroyed in fire amounts to Rs. 1,96,46,355.43. The certified and audited calculation estimated scrap value of loss against stock destroyed in fire is Ex. CW1/13.
viii. The surveyor though took the cost of reprocessing at the rate of Rs. 8/- per kg. still at the said rate complainant had not received the re-processing charges amounting to Rs. 5,35,733.70.
ix. The value of the damaged goods amounting to Rs. 4,09,42,802.22 was also not released in favour of the complainant, thus an amount of Rs. 3,58,41,010.00 exclusive of salvage value (Rs. 56,37,525.49) was also not released in favour of the complainant.
x. The amount released by the opposite party No. 1 was also grossly delayed taking almost 9 months from the submission of Survey Report by the Opposite Party No. 2 with the Opp. Party No.1. with the Opp. Party No.1.
15. Counsel for the complainant also referred to the Trading Account of the complainant, as on 06.08.2008 and 07.08.2008, which, we have already mentioned above. The verbatim claim made by the complainant is that it is entitled to an amount of ₹ 3,58,41,010/- towards the balance claim for the loss occurred there. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.45,77,983/- towards payment not made by the OP as for their admitted amount for full and final settlement.
16. Counsel for the complainant has cited few authorities in support of her case. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sehtia Shoes, (2008) 5 SCC 400, wherein at para No.8, it was held as under :-
"8. Filing of a complaint is, therefore, not barred; but it has to be proved that agreement to accept a particular amount was on account of coercion. In the instant case, this relevant factor has not been considered specifically by the District Forum, State Commission and the National Commission. Though plea of coercion was taken by claimant-respondent, same was refuted by the appellant. There is no dispute that the discharge voucher had been signed by the respondent. There has to be an adjudication as to whether the discharge voucher was signed voluntarily or under coercion. We remit the matter to the District Forum for fresh consideration. It would do well to dispose of the matter as early as practicable, preferably by the end of September, 2008".
Similar view was taken in the case of Noor Ali Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 17 SCC 565.
17. Counsel for the complainant also referred to Amirali A. Mukadam Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., IV (2007) CPJ 234 (NC), wherein at para No.14 of the judgment, it was held as under :-
"14. A plain reading of these two sections leave us in no doubt that the Insurers were in a position, where they could dictate terms, and, had the complainant not accepted the amount, it would have been to their detriment for the simple reason that the Insurance Company would not have paid the amount thus affecting the whole business of the complainant. In the given circumstances, it cannot be said that the Insurers did not have a 'real and apparent authority' over the complainant to exert undue influence over the insured".
18. Counsel for the complainant further invited our attention to another authority of the Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Kumar, (2009) 7 SCC 787, wherein, at para 22, it was held, as under :-
"22. In other words although the assessment of loss by the approved surveyor is a prerequisite for payment or settlement of claim of twenty thousand rupees or more by insurer, but surveyor's report is not the last and final word. It is not that sacrosanct that it cannot be departed from; it is not conclusive. The approved surveyor's report may be the basis or foundation for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured but surely such report is neither binding upon the insurer nor insured".
19. Counsel for the complainant, again, referred to the case titled Bhushan Steels & Strip Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Consumer Complaint No. 233 of 2000, decided on 05.08.2008, wherein this Commission, has held as under :-
"In our view, though the surveyors have submitted their final report on 11.12.2001, 11 months after the same the Insurance Company sent a letter asking the surveyor to calculate the maximum depreciation and revise their calculation. This, in our view, is not a healthy practice. This will shake the faith of the insured in the Insurance Company. The surveyors have finally assessed the amount payable after depreciation at Rs. 13,15,27,000/-. The Insurance Company is directed to pay this amount with 10% interest per annum after two months from the date of the submission of the survey report to the Insurance Company. The amount already paid by the Insurance Company i.e. Rs. 4,92,80,905/- and also a sum of Rs. 2,81,81,343/- on subsequent dates may be deducted out of this and for the amount paid no interest would be payable from the respective dates of payment. The Insurance Company shall also pay Rs. 50,000/- as cost to the complainant".
FINDINGS :
20. We find force in the arguments urged by the counsel for the complainant in a measure. The bizarre conduct of the Surveyor in submitting the report after a period of 11 months is difficult to fathom. However, other objections raised in respect of his report are not valid. Although the report of the Surveyor is not that sancroscent, though it cannot be departed from, yet, there should be some cogent and plausible reasons to reject his report. First of all, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant was under compelling circumstances to accept the full and final settlement. She contended that the complainant received this notice under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. The complainant's premises were under a danger of being acquired by the Bank. She further submitted that a case against the complainant is pending before the DRT. These are mere assertions and are not bolstered by solid and unflappable evidence. There is no proof on record to show that the complainant was facing financial stringency and was compelled to accept the full and final settlement.
21. Secondly, the complainant did not make any whimper and protest, but accepted the full and final settlement, immediately. No protest was lodged till the filing of the complaint. It may be mentioned that full and final settlement was accepted on 18.11.2009 and the complaint was lodged on 04.08.2010.
22. Again, an amount of ₹ 2,79,82,286/- matches with the report of the Surveyor. It is also to be noted that the complainant itself does not know as to how much loss, it had suffered. The 'but and ben' stand put forward by it casts a flim of doubt over its claim. At one place, it submits that it suffered a loss of ₹ 11.00 crores. It made a claim of ₹8,63,41,930/-. Again, there is a difference of claim made by it in the original complaint and in the amended complaint.
23. The facts of most of the above said authorities do not dovetail with the facts of this case. First of all, there is no reason to discard the report of the Surveyor. He is an independent witness. There is no evidence on record which may go to show that he was having a bad blood with any of the parties. The Hon'ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors. Vs. Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. & Ors., (2000) 10 SCC 19, the Hon'ble Apex court was pleased to hold :
"7. The appellant had appointed joint surveyors in terms of Section 64-UM(2) of the Insurance Act, 1938. Their report has been placed on the record in which a detailed account of the factors on the basis of which the joint surveyors had come to the conclusion that there was no loss or damage caused on account of fire, was given and it was on this basis that the claim was not found entertainable. This is an important document which was placed before the Commission, but the Commission, curiously, has not considered the report. Since the claim of the respondent was repudiated by the appellant on the basis of the joint survey report, the Commission was not justified in awarding the insurance amount to the respondent without adverting itself to the contents of the joint survey report, specially the facts enumerated therein. In our opinion, non-consideration of this important document has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice and vitiates the judgment passed by the Commission. The case has, therefore, to be sent back to the Commission, for a fresh hearing".
24. This Commission in the case of D.N.Badoni Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, 1 (2012) CPJ 272 (NC), held "that it is a well settled law that a Surveyor's report has significant evidentiary value unless, it is proved otherwise, which the petitioner has failed to do so in the instant case".
25. The following extracts from the Surveyor's report are reproduced here, as under :-
"2. The insured further provided us their claim bill for Rs.8,63,41,930/- (net of salvage) against their initial loss intimation of Rs.5 crores. We apprised the insurers on 9th January 2009 at their Regional Office. It was decided to undertake Physical weighing of the large quantity of work in progress, which during initial survey never intimated as affected/damaged.
3. The insured subsequently agreed to justify the existence of huge stock of WIP and correlate the same with the PO's in hand. The insured made an attempt to satisfy us that they had procured raw material in advance, did slitting for manufacture of transformers in demand in Punjab and Haryana. We were, however, not satisfied and desired product wise segregation in order to correlate the physical quantities of stock 'vis-à-vis' the on-going production. At this point of time, the insured revealed that the WIP contained stock of lamination cuttings against an order of 1400 no. transformers of A-Z for import to Nigeria. We examined the PO file and referred the relevant correspondence to ascertain the quantity of WIP relevant to that. The Insured initially argued as to defend by stating that the WIP of 1400 no. transformers of 50 KVA was still useful and hence loss be paid for the same. We however did not agree with their contention, since 50 KVA transformers are not manufactured/ used in India. Besides, the pre-fire condition of the cut out material was not known. The Insured finally accepted claim without this lot.
4. The Insured was asked to elaborate the reasons for holding large quantity of cut CRGO etc. Initially the Insured hesitated and after lot of persuasion the Insured did confirm that one of the purchase orders, placed by A-Z buyers, could not be materialized. We obtained the copy of that order and it was found that the stock lying in the insured's premises including the work in process, related to an old and cancelled order.
5. When we discussed with the insured for huge quantity of raw material stock mainly CRGO at the floor in cut condition, the Insured initially cited the reason that no huge quantity of such type of stock was kept in the premises. After lot of persuasion, the insured reluctantly admitted that the stock pertaining to one of their old order was cut and kept inside the factory premises, since the order was cancelled by the respective party and stock cut against these order was also lying in the factory at the time of fire, as scrap. Which remain in the same condition value wise as it was prior to loss date.
6. When we visited the site of the insured we had also noticed that various types of raw material stock were lying in safe condition. We jointly with the Insured conducted the Physical Inventory of safe stock item wise.
7. On verifying the raw material stock register i.e. RG-23A, Part-1, we found that the Insured transfers the entire raw material quantity to the production floor on the day of procurement itself i.e. not on actual consumption basis. This confirms that the entire stock raw material had been shown as issued material stock register, whereas the stock reflected in the raw material stock register as "issued", may have not converted into further processing.
8. We have computed the loss as per physical verification basis. To compute the loss, we have considered the quantity as per physical verification /weighing slips. From this quantity, we have not admitted that quantity of raw material consisting of CRGO, Channels and CR coils and sheets, based on specifications mentioned in the purchase order, which were kept for the cancelled order of 1460 transformers, at the time of fire. During our visit to the site, we also observed some scrap quantity of raw materials and the same has also been deducted from the balance quantity to arrive at net affected quantity. Few of the affected quantities were found slightly affected, which could have been reprocessed and the same was got reprocessed from outside parties".
26. Learned counsel for the complainant also contended that the police reports mentions that due to short circuit, the above said fire occurred. She further contended that the reasoning given by the Surveyor is not correct.
27. We are unable to locate any substance in these arguments. The Surveyor is an Expert. The report written by the police is always at the dictation of the complainant. The police officer is not an Expert. The cause given by the Surveyor, which has not been rebutted by the complainant, appears to be correct.
28. Even if it is assumed that the complainant has accepted and signed the full and final settlement receipt, under compelling circumstances, there is nothing on record to prove the contrary facts in favour of the complainant. For irrelevant reasons, the report of the Surveyor cannot be rejected. The insured is always required to extend the full co-operation to the insurance company. The non-cooperation is done at its own peril.
29. In the result, the case of the complainant does not stand proved due to lack of evidence. The case of the complainant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
......................J J.M. MALIK PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER