Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.24 seconds)

Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 24 August, 2009

16.     It is also pertinent to note that the Complaint was filed before the State Commission on 04.08.2006, whereas the Report of M/s J.B. Boda Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., dated 23.03.2009 was filed before the State Commission only after the Complainant had requested for it, on 15.12.2011.  This act of the Insurance Company in filing the Survey Report after 5 and half years of filing of the Complaint is deprecated.  We find no illegality in the observation made by the State Commission that the report of M/s J.B. Boda Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. is based on assumptions and technicalities and does not reflect the factual loss.  At this juncture, we find it a fit case to place reliance on the Judgement of the Supreme Court in Sri Venkateswara Syndicate Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 507 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has deprecated the stand of the Insurance Company in appointing one Surveyor after the other without given specific cogent and satisfactory reasons.  Even in the instant case the Preliminary Survey was done on 30.10.2005 and thereafter an Investigator was appointed and still thereafter M/s J.B. Boda Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., was appointed whose report is dated 23.03.2009 and at the cost of repetition  the same was filed before the State Commission only on 15.12.2011, five and half years after the Complainant has filed the Complaint.  This is contrary to Regulation 9 of IRDA which stipulates that the Surveyor has to file its Report within 30 days from his appointment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 367 - H L Dattu - Full Document

M/S New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs M/S Luxra Enterprises Pvt Ltd on 1 May, 2019

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Luxra Enterprises Private Ltd. & Anr. (2019) 6 SCC 36, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly laid down that rejection of report of its own Surveyor by the Insurance Company in the absence of any valid reason or proof that the report was arbitrary or excessive cannot be sustained.  Though, the Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has relied on Section 64(um) of the Insurance Act 1938  to state there was no prohibition in the Insurance Act for appointment of another Surveyor, in this instant case there was no cogent reason given by the Insurance Company to appoint one Investigator and again another Surveyor.  Hence, we are of the view that both the afore-noted judgements rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Venkateswara Syndicate and in Luxra Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (mentioned supra) squarely apply to the facts of this case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 20 - H Gupta - Full Document
1