Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.                Factual matrix: Complainant alleged that he obtained loan from Sarv Haryana Gramin Bank for installing 'Poly House' and got it installed in his agriculture land. 'Poly House' was insured with Insurer/Appellant through Sarv Haryana Gramin Bank as Bank deducted amount from his Loan Account for insurance. Due to natural climate, 'Poly House' was broken/badly damaged and he complained to OPs about it. Insurer/Appellant got it (damaged/broken Poly House) surveyed from its surveyor and thereafter with permission of surveyor; he (complainant) got 'Poly House' repaired by spending Rs.11,00,000/-. He applied for insurance claim but Insurer/Appellant paid Rs.4,06,201/- to him. Thereafter, he requested OPs to pay him the remaining amount, but to no effect. By alleging deficiency in service of OPs on above facts; complaint has been filed for issuance of directions to pay him (complainant) balance amount of Rs.6,93,799/- with interest, compensation and litigation expenses.

5.                Parties led evidence, oral as well as documentary. On analyzing the same, the learned District Consumer Commission vide order dated 01.07.2019 has allowed the complaint in a manner as enumerated herein before. Feeling dissatisfied; insurer has filed this appeal. We have heard learned counsel for Insurer/Appellant as well as learned counsel for complainant at length and with their able assistance; entire record of complaint case too has been perused.

6.                Learned counsel for Appellant/Insurer, while urging for acceptance of this appeal has contended that surveyor's report is exhaustive and explanatory in nature. Rs.4,06,201/- as assessed by surveyor has already been paid to complainant, in full and final satisfaction of complainant's claim regarding damage to the 'Poly House'. Discharge/satisfaction voucher from complainant has been obtained while paying this amount. It is further urged that 'Poly House' in question was purchased on 15.11.2013 and loss to it had occurred it on 23.05.2016, therefore, as per contention; depreciation on various metal and non metallic parts was bound to occur. Insurer's surveyor has analyzed all these relevant facets and ground realities with regard to nature of damage to 'Poly House' and thereafter, furnished its report strictly within the parameters of policy. It is urged that learned District Consumer Commission has committed an illegality while deviating itself from substratum of surveyor's report without giving any cogent reason.

8.                Sole moot proposition before this Commission is: 'as to whether loss amounts to Rs.4,06,201/- as assessed by Appellant's/Insurer's Surveyor through its report dated 08.09.2016 was the outcome of meticulously evaluated by analyzing all relevant facets or not'? Answer to this moot question has to be in affirmative. Surveyor's report dated 08.09.2016 is very exhaustive, elaborate and explanatory in itself. Irrespective of fact that complainant's 'Poly House' was insured by appellant/insurer at Rs.37,40,000/-, yet this insured amount, would become foreign to this case for simple reason that 'Poly House' of complainant had already covered a span of more than two years, before ill-fated day, when it got damaged. By no stretch of any legal interpretation, it can be viewed that despite 'Poly House' having already run a life of more than two years still it will not attract any depreciation, qua its metallic and non-metallic parts. This Commission is not oblivious of the fact that any property/asset, irrespective of its nature and type (moveable or immoveable) will always carry some life span. Therefore, while keeping this adage in mind, it would be legitimate to observe that any asset, moveable or immoveable would certainly suffer decay and depreciation, due to efflux of its life span. Of course, it is well settled legal proposition by now that: surveyor's report cannot be termed as so sacrosanct, not to be deviated form. If, surveyor's report is exhaustive and subjectively cover all material aspects, with regard to subject in question, then the same would certainly become a formidable and acceptable base to be relied upon. There is no exception, so far as present case is concerned. More so, surveyor's report in case in hand dated 08.09.2016 has never been rebutted by complainant through leading any evidence admissible in law. Consequently, this Commission does not find any reason to disbelieve the authenticity and credibility of surveyor's report dated 08.09.2016. Surveyor has appropriately induced the element of depreciation, viz-a-viz 'Poly House' while arriving at conclusion that as per policy, complainant is entitled to Rs.4,06,201/- towards its loss. While arriving at this conclusion; the surveyor had noticed that in normal course 'Poly House' has life span of four (04) years. So far as this case is concerned, 'Poly House' was purchased on 15.11.2013 and loss to it had occurred on 23.05.2016. Thus, it was already 2½ (two and half) years old and would, therefore, fetch and attract depreciation in any circumstance.  Accordingly, on that basis, surveyor had proceeded ahead regarding analysis of loss to 'Poly House'. Above quality approach adopted by surveyor in the arena of analyzing the loss is obviously germane at legal pedestal. No bias on the part of surveyor is deciphered even remotely keeping in view the ground realities of factual scenario.

 10.             This Commission has considered above laid down ratio of law in the light of facts of present case and come to an inescapable conclusion that guiding principles have been laid down in above quoted judgments, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court have set at rest, the controversy by upholding surveyor's report which carry element of deduction and depreciation. Consequently, it has held that Insurer's/Appellant has an indefeasible right to induce element of deduction and depreciation of 'Poly House' in question despite insuring it at Rs.37,40,000/- during the insurance period during which the loss to 'Poly House' had resulted. This right of Insurer/Appellant can never be termed to have been foreclosed. Rightly, the Insurer/Appellant had paid Rs.4,06,201/- to the complainant as per its surveyor's report dated 08.09.2016.