Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1.90 crores. The cotton stocks in question were covered by seven insurance policies issued by respondent - Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as `insurer' for a total sum of Rs.1.98 Crores during the period when the fire accident took place. The appellant made a claim of Rs.1.90 crores towards loss of stock due to accidental fire in its business premises, with the insurer. Pursuant to the claim so made, the insurance company appointed one Sri K. Siva Prasad, a licensed surveyor for preliminary investigation and for submitting a preliminary report, about the cause of fire and the probable loss said to have been suffered by the insured. The surveyor having examined the place of fire accident gave preliminary report dated 09.09.1999 to the insurance company estimating the loss of stock at Rs.1,73,92,310/-, however, had noticed in his report that the number of bales and borahs lying in the Godown and the actual quantity of lint damaged by fire has to be got confirmed from the accounts of the insured and also by physical verification of bale hoops. The insurer after receipt of the preliminary report of Sri K. Siva Prasad, had appointed Joint Surveyors M/s Mehta and Padamsey and Kaypens, in terms of Section 64 UM(2) of the Insurance Act to give a joint report. They conducted a joint survey and in that, had estimated the loss of stock insured at Rs.1,67,80,925/- and gave a report to that effect to the insurer. The insurer being of the view that the report is perfunctory, had appointed yet another Surveyor viz. Dinesh Gopal and Co. who, in turn appointed one Mr. Panchal, former DIG (Fire) CISF and Fire Adviser to the Government of India to investigate and submit a report, who in turn after investigation and survey submitted his report dated 07.05.2000, confirming the quantification made by the Joint Surveyor.

7) In response to the submission made by learned senior counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the insurer invites our attention to the counter affidavit filed by them before this Court in justification of the order passed by National Consumer Commission and then submits that the provisions of Section 64-UM of Insurance Act, 1938 does authorize the insurer to appoint surveyor or surveyors, may be for the second time for the purpose of getting a fair report of the actual loss suffered by the insured. To buttress their submission, they invite our attention to the provision of Section 64-UM of the Insurance Act, 1938, for which we will make reference at the appropriate stage. The learned counsel also submitted several reasons for not accepting the report of Joint Surveyors in view of the lacuna pointed out by the Chartered Accountant, who was asked to verify the Books of Accounts maintained by the insured to ascertain the actual loss incurred due to the fire accident by the insured in its place of business and therefore, there is no illegality committed by the National Consumer Commission in accepting the report of Chartered Accountant and directing the insurance company to pay as assessed and quantified by an independent agency. The learned counsel also submits that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the National Consumer Commission was justified in awarding interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 01.03.2001, though a claim was made for awarding interest at the rate of 18% from the date of fire incident till the date of payment.

8) Two issues would arise for our consideration and decision. Firstly, whether the insurance company can repeatedly appoint Surveyors after Surveyors for getting the loss/damage assessed before settling the claim of the insured. The incidental question is, whether the National Consumer Commission was justified in awarding 6% interest per annum from 01.03.2001 as against the claim of the appellant at 18% from the date of the fire accident, viz. 24.08.1999.

9) To appreciate the issues raised in this civil appeal, we extract relevant Section by omitting what is not necessary for the purpose of this case. Section 64-UM(2) of the Insurance Act, 1938 is as under :

10)Section 64-UM (1) of the Act speaks of licensing of Surveyors and loss assessors. We are not very much concerned with this sub-section. Sub-

section (2) mandates that no claim in respect of a loss which has occurred in India and requiring to be paid in India equal to or exceeding twenty thousand rupees in value on any policy of insurance be admitted for payment, unless insurer obtains a report on the loss that has occurred from a person who holds a license issued under sub-section (1) of Section 64 UM of the Act as a Surveyor or loss assessor. The proviso to sub- section(2) however, retains the right of the insurer to settle a claim for an amount different from that assessed by the surveyor. This proviso impliedly permits an insurer to obtain a second or further report where considered appropriate or expedient in the circumstances of a case, based upon which the claim could be settled for a different amount than as assessed earlier.