Skip to main content

Report of the surveyor forms the basis for settlement of the Insurance claim

In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs M/S. Jamia Hamdard, EPABX system installed at the office ofrespondent was insured under Fire & Special Perils Insurance Policy for a sum insured of Rs.15,00,000/-. On 02.10.2004, it was reported that the said EPABX went out of order since 2.10.2004 and was claimed to be total loss. The surveyors inspected the affected machine on 28.10.2004.  A claim for Rs.9,24,000/- was submitted by respondent to the surveyors.  The Service Engineers of the insured machine had confirmed that the damage has taken place to the system cards due to very high voltage due to lightning and the surveyor agreed with the views of the Service Engineers.   In view of the exclusion being applicable, the claim was not within the scope of the policy and was repudiated by letter dated 10.2.2005. The respondent complained before the District Forum which allowed the claim  directed the petitioner to pay to the respondent Rs.15 lacs with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony, harassment and deficiency of service and Rs.20,000/- costs. The appeal of the petitioner was rejected by the State Forum.

The petitioner appeal before the National Forum under several grounds:-

1) No claim can be allowed for more amount than the claim filed with the insurance company. The original claim was for Rs.9,24,000/-, however, the District Forum has allowed the claim for the total sum assured of Rupees 15 lacs and the State Commission has also confirmed the same.
2) Exclusion clause number 7 of the general exclusions of the policy is attracted in the present case as the cards were damaged due to direct impact of electricity high voltage caused by lightning. No other component has been damaged which could have been paid for. 
3) No reasoning has been given for not accepting the report of the surveyor. 
4) The forum below have directed compensation for mental agony and harassment but as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sikka Papers Limited Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. , it has been decided that no such compensation is payable to any institution.

The NCDRC held that :-

1) Lightning is covered under the policy without any qualifications attached to this  peril. In the General Exclusion Clause No. 7, though the component damaged with fire on account of lightening is also excluded, however, in the present case, there was no fire on account of lightning and therefore the component damaged from lightning is not excluded due to this clause. From the above analysis, it is clear that the damage to the cards is covered under the policy.
2) As per judgment of the Supreme Court in Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr and  Sikka Papers Limited Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, the report of the surveyor forms the basis for settlement of the Insurance claim unless there are cogent reasons for not accepting the same. Moreover, when the claim submitted before the surveyor was only for rupees 9,24,000/-, there is no basis for granting a compensation of Rupees 15 lakhs under the insurance policy. 
3) AN institution is not entitled to get any compensation for harassment and mental agony as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sikka papers Limited.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more