Skip to main content

Survey report is final unless fault is found

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on April 10 has ruled that a survey report is binding unless it can be faulted and the infirmities pointed out.

Dev Medical Agency, a partnership firm, was running a medical store at Panipat in Haryana. The company's premises were insured with two separate insurance companies for a total amount of Rs 15 lakh. National Insurance Company gave coverage of Rs 5 lakh under a cover note issued on February 14, 2004, while Rs 10-lakh coverage was given by New India Assurance under a cover note issued on March 2, 2004.

There was a theft in the shop in 2004. The partners informed the local police and insurance companies about the theft. The police registered an FIR the next day. The insurance companies deputed a surveyor to assess the loss. The medical store pegged the loss at Rs 10,64,103, and submitted documents. The insurance companies did not find the documentation acceptable and refused to pay the claim. Aggrieved, the medical agency filed a complaint before the district consumer forum.

The insurance companies justified the repudiation. They pointed out that the claim had been assessed by a spot surveyor and a final surveyor. The survey report found a loss of Rs 2,93,356, which was to be apportioned between the two insurance companies on a proportionate basis according to the sum insured. Despite this, the insurance companies refused to settle the claim, citing the reason to be an observation of the surveyor that the accounts and vouchers had been manipulated to inflate the claim. Terming the manipulation as a breach of the terms of the insurance policy, the claims were repudiated. The insurance companies denied that there was any deficiency in service.

The district forum considered the rival contentions and evidence on record, and concluded that there was deficiency in service. It held the insurance companies liable to pay the partners the claimed amount of Rs 10,64,103 along with interest at the rate of nine per cent a year from the date of repudiation of the claim, and Rs 3,300 as costs. This order was upheld by the Haryana State Commission in appeal.

The insurance companies challenged the order in revision before the national commission. The entire emphasis was that the claim was not payable since the insured medical agency had manipulated its records, which was evident from variation of the figures stated in the sales tax returns and the balance sheet.

The national commission observed that the issue which required to be determined was whether the consumer forums had been right in disregarding the survey report and awarding an amount higher than what was quantified by the surveyors. The commission noted that there was no explanation why the district forum had accepted the medical agency's quantification of Rs 10,64,103, disregarding the surveyor's assessment of Rs 2,93,356.

The commission pointed out that even though a pharmacist is required to run a medical agency, it was admittedly being run by an illiterate, rustic person, which was the reason why the accounts were not being properly maintained. The commission felt that since loss due to theft was not in dispute, it would be improper to reject the entire claim, but should be settled in accordance with the survey report.

Accordingly, the national commission held that a survey report has to be accepted unless it can be established that it suffers from some infirmity. It modified the orders of the district forum and the state commission, and instead directed the insurance company to settle the claim at Rs 2,93,356, as assessed by the surveyor. In addition, interest at nine per cent was awarded from the date of the complaint.

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pf/survey-report-is-final-unless-fault-is-found-115050300764_1.html

Comments

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/

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.