SANGAM DISTRIBUTORS Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case there was a fire insurance policy taken by the petitioner in respect of his shop and the stocks. It is conceded that during the currency of the policy shop caught fire and was completely gutted on 16th May, 1993. INsurance Company was informed of the fire accident on 17th May, 1993 and a Surveyor was appointed on 18th May, 1993. The Surveyor submitted his preliminary report assessing the loss at Rs. 3,74,998/-. He proceeded further and after scrutiny submitted his final report assessing the loss at Rs. 3,77,625/-. Yet a third report was sought from the same Surveyor by the INsurance Company which was submitted assessing the loss at Rs. 3,50,973/-. Not satisfied even with the assessment and without intimation to the insured the INsurance Company embarked upon the exercise to appoint a second Surveyor to assess the loss, which he did taking into account the earlier reports and assessed the loss at Rs. 3,13,305/-, on 9th June, 1994. And, still, the claim was not settled, when the insured was forced to move the State Commission with a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on 22nd August, 1994. On 30th September, 1994, the INsurance Company wrote to the 2nd Surveyor asking him to reassess the loss which he did on 3rd October, 1994 and reassessed the loss at Rs. 2,63,366/-. Counsel for the INsurance Company's argument is that there was no document or material to asses the loss. IN the face of this, we fail to understand, how did the second Surveyor submit his second report by scaling down the assessment of loss. Before the next date of hearing, the INsurance Company sent this amount of Rs. 2,63,266/- to the Bank with whom the goods were hypothecated and the Bank accepted that amount by mentioning that the matter is already subjudice before the Court. The case was heard and the Fora below have found that there was no basis for the INsurance Company to deny the claim of the insured by repeatedly seeking assessments and re-assessments of the loss and resorting to payment after the case had already been filed. No material has been brought on record as to why the report of the Surveyor assessing the loss at Rs. 3,74,919/- be not accepted. Counsel for the INsurance Company has also not been able to convince us as to what new material was found by the second Surveyor on second assessment which justified scaling down the loss assessed keeping all the facts in mind and especially the fact that in May, 1993 upto October, 1994 there was no payment made to the insured or his banker, we are of the view that there was no justification for appointment of second Surveyor and that the amount determined by the Surveyor in his first report should be accepted as appropriate assessment of the loss. Accordingly we hold that the petitioner is entitled to recover from the INsurance Company a sum of Rs. 3,74,919/- on account of the loss. Since Rs. 2,63,366/- has already been paid, the balance amount will be paid by the INsurance Company to the appellant with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from two months after 17th August, 1993, i.e. the first report of the Surveyor till the date of payment. The petition is dosposed of. The petitioner will also be entitled to costs assessed at Rs. 2,000/-. Petition disposed of.