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

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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/
Post a Comment
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