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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...