Report of a surveyor appointed by insurance company is not last & final word: SC

S.S. Cold Storage India Pvt Ltd Vs National Insurance Company Limited (Supreme Court of India)

Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Apex Court while allowing the appeal have observed that the report of a surveyor appointed by the insurance company may be considered as evidence while settling a claim, more evidence on record could be used to rebut the contents of the same.

Facts: The present appeal, under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenges the judgment and order dated 13^th September 2011 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, whereby Original Petition No. 80 of 1999 (for brevity, “Complaint” hereafter) filed by the Appellant was dismissed.

The Appellant was engaged in the business of operating a cold storage facility, the plant, machinery, and stock whereof were continually insured by the Respondent. Around 3^rd and 4^th October 1997, there was leakage of ammonia gas in Chamber Nos. 1 and 2 of the Facility, resulting in significantly elevated temperatures, and a foul smell, culminating in a closure of the Facility. In the immediate aftermath of the incident of leakage of gas, on 4^th October 1997 to be precise, the Appellant informed the Respondent and the District Horticulture Officer of the same, whilst requesting an inspection of the Facility. The Appellant, on 10^th October 1997, also wrote to the District Horticulture Officer to sell the potatoes that were stored in the affected Chambers in order to have the Chambers cleared. The Appellant, on 14^th October 1997, filed a claim with the Respondent claiming an amount of Rs.1,03,15,080/-. Therein, the damage was claimed in respect of 85,956 bags of potatoes, each weighing around 80kg, where the amount claimed was calculated at Rs.150/- per quintal as per the stipulations of the Refrigeration Policy. The District Horticulture Officer, on 18^th October 1997, while responding to the Appellant’s letter dated 10^th October 1997 stated that the disposal of potatoes should be prioritised to prevent the spread of any disease or epidemic in the vicinity. The Respondent meanwhile had instructed a surveyor to inspect the Facility. However, he expressed his inability to assess the Facility due to the magnitude of the damage. Then the Respondent appointed another surveyor to inspect the Facility. The Surveyor addressed a letter to the Appellant asking it to preserve the existing state of affairs in the Facility as the Chambers were inaccessible due to high temperature and the stench of ammonia. After the Chambers were cleared of the ammonia gas, the Surveyor visited the Facility on 17^th January 1998, to conduct the requisite inspection. The Surveyor, by letter dated 10^th March 1998, informed the Appellant that the incident had occurred due to decay, wear and tear, leading to leakage of ammonia gas. The pipe had given way along the seam, and that was attributable to decay, wear, and tear; hence the same was excluded as per the Refrigeration Policy. On 22^nd January 1999, the Respondent informed the Appellant that its claim had been repudiated by its competent authority. The Appellant then instituted the Complaint before the NCDRC on 17^th April 1999 claiming an amount of Rs.1,03,15,680/- and certain further amounts, upon the repudiation of its claim under the Refrigeration Policy. On 7^th January 2010, the Appellant’s amended complaint was taken on record by the NCDRC.

After considering the pleadings as well as the other materials on record, the NCDRC opined that the Appellant had failed to establish deficiency by the Respondent in providing services and declined to grant compensation, as a consequence whereof it dismissed the Complaint filed by the Appellant as noted above.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.