Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

          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.

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."