Skip to main content

Cannot go against surveyor report: Consumer forum

The Thane District Consumer Redressal Forum has pulled up the New India Assurance Company for refusing to accept an insurance claim of a businessman on the grounds that rainwater and not flood water had destroyed his goods.

Citing that the insurance company's defense to refuse claim on such technical grounds as unjust, the forum has directed the company to pay a compensation of Rs 20,000 and insurance of Rs 8.46 lakh at six per cent interest to Ajay Shivnani of M/s Satyam Distributors. His goods were destroyed in heavy rains in 2009. In his complaint, Shivnani told the forum that he took an insurance of Rs 15 lakh for goods stored in a warehouse between May 26, 2009 and May 25, 2010. Shivnani said despite his attempts to shift the goods to dry area, heavy rains on October 4 and 5, 2009 destroyed a huge chunk of goods estimated to be worth Rs 11.74 lakh.

The complainant immediately informed the insurance company, which on October 6, sent their investigator Surendra Kumar Kalra to verify Shivnani's claims. Kalra, in his report on October 26, 2009, accepted goods were destroyed in the rains but valued the loss of goods at Rs 8.46 lakh and not Rs 11.44 lakh as demanded by Shivnani.

The company, however, refused to pay the claim to Shivnani citing the above technical point.

The forum, after going through the insurance papers, said the company was not justified in raising such technical grounds when their own investigator had verified and accepted Shivnani's claim after which they passed the order.

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/thane/Dont-refuse-claim-on-technical-grounds-Consumer-forum/articleshow/34341364.cms

 Comment:
The above contention of the Ld. Forum appears to be opposed to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs Oriental Insurance Company, wherein the Hon'ble court clearly stated "under the Insurance Act, the assistance of a surveyor should be taken but the insurer was not bound to accept his opinion. The insurer can depute another surveyor and accept the latter view. The court would interfere only if the rejection of the survey report is arbitrary or malafide."

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more