ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. DAR BRICK KILN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent, a partnership firm, approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar with a complaint that the appellant, Insurance Company, has wrongfully refuted the claim lodged by the respondent under a policy of insurance obtained by it from the appellant. The Commission, on the basis of the materials before it, allowed the complaint, assessed the liability and directed payment thereof with interest and, at the same time, imposed costs. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant is before us.

(2.) THE undisputed facts of the case are that one of the perils covered by the insurance policy taken out by the respondent was flood. The respondent claimed that it suffered loss by reason of flood. The appellant carried out preliminary survey and thereupon appointed Mr. Praveen Agarwal and Mr. M. S. Mallik as surveyors to assess the loss. The appellant also appointed M/s A. M. S. Consultants and M/s R. S. Agarwal & Sons for conducting joint investigation. The joint investigators filed a report on September 26, 1996, holding out that there was no loss due to flood as the place in question, namely, the Brick Kiln of the respondent, was not inundated by flood. In February 1997, Mr. Praveen Agarwal and Mr. M. S. Malik submitted their assessment report and thereby assessed the loss that was sustained by the respondent, allegedly by reason of flood. There is no dispute that the loss, as was assessed by Mr. M. S. Malik and Mr. P. Agarwal, was accepted by the Commission, as the loss sustained by the respondent.

(3.) BEFORE the Commission, it was contended by the appellant that there is no evidence that there was flood at the local where the Brick Kiln of the respondent was situate and, on the contrary, the investigators have reported that there was no flood there and such view has also been endorsed by the Assistant Commissioner, Anantnag. The Commission has rejected such contention by not placing reliance upon the investigation report for the reasons indicated in the judgment and order of the Commission. The reasons are as follows: