Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)Section 15 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
The Insurance Act, 1938
Khatema Fibres Ltd. vs New India Assurance Company Ltd. on 28 September, 2021
15. As per the rulings of the various judicial authorities, the report of the
surveyor is an authentic document to be considered in connection with the assessment
of loss in an insurance claim. The surveyor was appointed as per section 64 UM of the
Insurance Act 1938 and hence his report is to be considered unless there is any
evidence of violationofcodeofconductofthesurveyor. Therelevanceof insurance survey
report was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inSri Venkateshwara Syndicate
V/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Anr, (Civil Appeal No.4487 of 2004
decided on 24 August 2009)in which the Apex Court observed that
"22. .......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
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. ....".
The Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the significance of the assessment of loss by the
surveyor in Khatema Fibres Ltd Vs New India Assurance by ruling that the claim was
admitted by the insurer based on the surveyor's assessment and there was no arbitrary
or unjustifiable repudiation by the insurer.Thus, it is settled that insurance survey
report is to be considered as an acceptable document to decide about the quantum of
loss in an insurance claim.
Tata Motors Ltd. vs Antonio Paulo Vaz & Anr. on 9 January, 2020
18. We observe that though there was an extended warranty, the complainant
was not able to prove manufacturing defect on the vehicle. In his report dated
30.09.2013 (Exhibit C1) the expert reported that there was no manufacturing defect of
the vehicle.There is no material on record to fasten liability on the manufacturer. It
was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Motors Ltd Vs Antonio Paulo Vaz &
Another, (2021 KHC Online 6110), that if there is any deficiency in service by the
dealer or the authorised service centre in rendering assistance for repairs of the
vehicle, the manufacturer of the vehicle cannot be held liable.
Honda Cars India Limited vs Sudesh Berry on 12 November, 2021
This was reiterated by
the Apex court in Honda Cars India Ltd Vs Sudesh Berry (Live Law 2021 SC 649)and
held that manufacturer cannot be held liable for any defects in the performance of a
dealer or an authorised service centre. Hence, we concur with the finding of the
District Commission that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite
parties 1 and 2, manufacturers of the vehicle.
1