Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.71 seconds)

National Insurance Company Ltd vs Nipha Exports Pvt. Ltd on 29 September, 2006

10. It appears from two Survey Reports of the complainant that Mr.Manoj Bhargava assessed the loss to the extent of 13 Rs.10,13,826/-, whereas the Second Surveyor Nav Bharat Nirman Company assessed the loss to the extent of Rs.10,92,400/-. On the other hand, the Protocol Surveyors and Engineers Pvt. Ltd., the Surveyor of the Insurance Company, who is licensed surveyor of the IRDA assessed the loss to the complainant's premises to the extent of only Rs.69,000/- on the reinstatement value basis and to Rs.60,720/- on the market value basis. It also appears that the Survey Report (Ex.OP.3/3) of the Protocol Surveyor is based on physical verification of the premises, the stock, photographs and other documents, whereas the Survey Report (Annex.6) prepared by Nav Bharat Nirman Company and Survey Report prepared by Manoj Bhargava (Annex.11) is not substantiated by any document or report of physical verification, therefore, the Survey Report prepared by Protocol Surveyor submitted by the Insurance Company is more reliable and trustworthy as compared to the reports 14 submitted by the complainant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in IV (2006) CPJ 17 (National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nipha Exports Pvt. Ltd.) and III (2007) CPJ 317 (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mehta Wool Store) has laid down that due weightage should be given to the report of the IRDA Surveyor. Moreover, the complainant did not submit any objections or protest against the Survey Report (Ex.OP.3/3) of the Protocol Surveyors of the Insurance Company. Therefore, the report of Protocol Surveyor (Ex.OP.3/3) is more reliable then the report (Annex.11) of Mr.Manoj Bhargava, the Surveyor of the complainant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 42 - H K Sema - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Mehta Wool Store on 3 July, 2007

10. It appears from two Survey Reports of the complainant that Mr.Manoj Bhargava assessed the loss to the extent of 13 Rs.10,13,826/-, whereas the Second Surveyor Nav Bharat Nirman Company assessed the loss to the extent of Rs.10,92,400/-. On the other hand, the Protocol Surveyors and Engineers Pvt. Ltd., the Surveyor of the Insurance Company, who is licensed surveyor of the IRDA assessed the loss to the complainant's premises to the extent of only Rs.69,000/- on the reinstatement value basis and to Rs.60,720/- on the market value basis. It also appears that the Survey Report (Ex.OP.3/3) of the Protocol Surveyor is based on physical verification of the premises, the stock, photographs and other documents, whereas the Survey Report (Annex.6) prepared by Nav Bharat Nirman Company and Survey Report prepared by Manoj Bhargava (Annex.11) is not substantiated by any document or report of physical verification, therefore, the Survey Report prepared by Protocol Surveyor submitted by the Insurance Company is more reliable and trustworthy as compared to the reports 14 submitted by the complainant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in IV (2006) CPJ 17 (National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nipha Exports Pvt. Ltd.) and III (2007) CPJ 317 (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mehta Wool Store) has laid down that due weightage should be given to the report of the IRDA Surveyor. Moreover, the complainant did not submit any objections or protest against the Survey Report (Ex.OP.3/3) of the Protocol Surveyors of the Insurance Company. Therefore, the report of Protocol Surveyor (Ex.OP.3/3) is more reliable then the report (Annex.11) of Mr.Manoj Bhargava, the Surveyor of the complainant.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 0 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1