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

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/
Post a Comment
Read more

'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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more