NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. ENMAX SYSTEMZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") has been filed by the Appellant (hereinafter referred as "the Insurance Company") against the order dated -----09.10.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint No.562 of 2014 filed by the Respondent (hereinafter referred as "the Complainant"). The Complaint was allowed by the State Commission.

(2.) The Insurance Company has challenged the impugned order on the ground that it suffers with illegality and infirmity since the State Commission has awarded the amount towards the loss suffered by the Complainant, more than the insured amount. It is argued that the goods were insured for a sum of Rs. 23,97,325/-, and the State Commission has awarded a sum of Rs. 26,54,328.49ps. It is further submitted that the interest @ 9% p.a. has been awarded w.e.f. 04.06.2013, i.e., the date of incident. It is submitted that the interest ought not to have been awarded from the date of incident, but from the date of filing of the Complaint. It is argued that the State Commission has also erred in not accepting the report of the second surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company.

(3.) It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the Complainant that the State Commission has wrongly awarded the amount beyond the insured amount and it needs to be corrected. He has also agreed that the award of interest from the date of incident is also illegal and be corrected and that the interest be awarded from the date when the claim was filed by the Complainant with the Insurance Company, i.e., 06.06.2013. However, it is argued that the appointment of second surveyor is without justification and reasonable reasons, and was an illegal act on the part of the Insurance Company. It is further submitted that the Insurance Company had never informed the Complainant of appointing a second surveyor and rather, they had kept asking for, till the end, more documents from the Complainant as required by the first surveyor. It is submitted that the report of the second surveyor has rightly been rejected by the State Commission. It is further submitted that the first surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 23,87,325/- which is less than the insured amount and the same amount should be awarded to the Complainant.