REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9668 OF 2014

M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd.         …… Appellant vs.

M/s Luxra Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.       .…..Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4371-4372 OF 2015

M/s Luxra Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Anr                 .….. Appellants vs.

M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd.                                  .……Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. This order shall dispose of Civil Appeals filed under Section 23 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 19851 preferred by both the parties against an

order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission2

against its order dated 01.08.2014 wherein, a sum of Rs. 54,93,865/- has

1 1985 Act 2 Commission

1

been awarded as compensation for loss suffered on account of damage by

fire to the Complainant, subject to the condition that the said amount will

be paid within 45 days by the Insurance Company otherwise it will carry

interest at the rate of 10 % per annum till its realisation.  

2. For the facility of reference, the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 9668

of  2014  will  be  called  hereinafter  as  the  Complainant,  whereas  the

Appellant-  New  India  Assurance  Co.  Ltd.  will  be  called  as  Insurance

Company. Civil Appeal Nos. 4371-72 of 2015 are filed by the Complainant.  

3. The Complainant is  an Industrial  Unit  engaged in  manufacture of

garments. The Complainant obtained a policy of insurance for the risk of

fire for the period 27.3.2000 to 26.3.2001 with the assured sum of Rs.

85,00,000/-. It was on 12.07.2000 at about 3.45 AM, the factory of the

Complainant was engulfed in fire. It is thereafter, the Complainant lodged

a claim for loss due to fire incident in its factory.  

4. M/s R.N. Sharma & Co., was appointed as an investigator to conduct

a preliminary investigation by the Insurance Company.  The preliminary

investigation  report  was  submitted on 20.07.2000.  It  is  thereafter,  M/s

Sunil  J.  Vora & Associates was appointed as the Surveyor by the Head

Office of  the  Insurance Company  on  July  28,  2000.  The said  Surveyor

submitted detailed report and accepted the claim of the Complainant for

Rs. 54,93,865/-. Out of the said amount, Rs. 1,65,430.53 was the claim on

account of damage to building; Rs. 3,93,779.78 was the claim towards the

damage to the machinery and Rs. 49,44,657.67 was the claim towards the

damage to the stocks. The amount was rounded off to Rs. 54,93,865/-.

5. The Insurance Company issued a communication dated 09.04.2001

to the Complainant asking for certain information after the said report was

2

submitted  to  the  Insurance  Company  on  12.02.2001.  The  information

sought is as under:-

“1. List of Machineries (copy of assets register)  2. Loss and profit accounts  3. Purchase details of raw materials  4. Verified  copy  of  Balance  Sheet  for  last  2   

years.  5. Original  copy  of  LC  &  LC  with  extended   

date of expiry  6. Details  of  Financial  arrangements  for   

increasing the turn over.  7.  Clarify  the  status  of  insurable  interest  on   

building.”

6. The Surveyor in his report has given loss to the machinery giving

details of the machinery damaged in fire and the amount admissible in

respect of its loss. The Insurance Company also communicated a letter to

its Senior Branch Manager on 26.09.2001 that the letter of credit dated

11.05.2000  of  Singapore  Branch  of  Bank  of  India  was  established  for

Gurcharan  Singh  &  Co.  Pvt.  Ltd.,  but  the  said  letter  of  credit  expired

without  receipt  of  any  document.  It  was  also  mentioned  that  the

Complainant is neither a beneficiary nor a notified party of said letter of

credit.

7.  Subsequently, M/s ABM Engineers & Consultants was appointed as

the  second  Surveyor  by  the  Insurance  Company.  The  said  Surveyor

accepted the loss of Rs. 24,76,585/- in its report dated 28.02.2002. The

second surveyor has taken into consideration stocks statement submitted

by  the  Complainant  to  Canara  Bank  on  30.4.2000,  31.05.2000  and

01.07.2000 respectively. Though, the Manager of Canara Bank is said to

have pointed out that these statements are like statutory requirements

but the surveyor brushed them aside for the reason that these documents

3

cannot  be  treated  as  documents  for  finalising  the  stock  value.  It  was

further observed that if the stocks statement is to be referred to, there is

no reason as to why letter of credit could not be materialized. The relevant

extracts from the report of the second surveyor are as under:-  

“(i)  Stock  statement  as  on  1.7.2000, 31.5.2000,  30.4.2000  submitted  by  insured  to bank.

These  statements  are  just  like  statutory requirement  (Refer  opinion  of  Canara  Bank Manager,  13B,  Investigation  verification).  These documents  cannot  be  treated  as  document  for finalizing stock value. If we refer to the quantity in these stock statements then there was no reason why  LC  could  not  materialize.  Further  these documents  contradict  with  purchase  invoices  of items  purchased  by  Luxara  Enterprises  Pvt.  Ltd. From their vendors.”

8. The Insurance Company was still  not  satisfied by the report  and

thereafter appointed Mr. R.G.Verma, a Chartered Accountant as its third

surveyor. The said surveyor recommended total repudiation of claim in its

report on 28.05.2002 under Clause 8 of the Insurance Policy on the ground

that there were enough valid circumstantial reasons on the part of the

Insured to  manipulate  the  fire.  It  is  after  the  said  report  furnished  on

28.06.2002, the claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the

same day i.e. 28.6.2002, inter-alia, on the ground that the Complainant

had no export order and the letter of credit does not show the name and

address of the buyer. It is mentioned therein that as per stocks statement

furnished to Canara Bank on 05.07.2000, 34,800 shirts were ready as on

01.07.2000  and  that  the  letter  of  credit  was  expiring  on  09.07.2000.

Therefore,  the  Complainant  did  not  explain  as  to  why  the  said

consignment was not shipped on or before 01.07.2000. Another reason

4

given was that the letter of credit was alleged to have been extended up

to 08.08.2000 in favour of somebody else. Therefore, there was no reason

for extension of letter of credit when the goods were allegedly ready on

01.07.2000  and  that  the  garment  could  not  be  exported  without

endorsement of invoice by Apparel Export Promotion Council but no such

endorsement  was  obtained  by  the  Complainant.  The  Surveyor  further

gave another reason, that 104203 meters of fabric was purchased from

M/s S.V.  Traders but the address given on the invoice and the challans

was not of fabric shop but that of a photocopy shop. Still further, another

reason communicated was that the letter of  credit  was opened by M/s

Sirdanwal Overseas of  Ajay Verma who is facing a criminal  case under

Sections 420, 406, 120(B) of IPC in FIR No. 98 dated 06.04.2002.

9. The Complainant in his complaint filed on 16.5.2002, has inter-alia

averred that he has taken a credit facility from Canara Bank to the tune of

Rs. 50,00,000/- and that the loan amount was disbursed in the months of

March and May, 2000. Such advance was secured by primary security of

stocks and goods lying in the factory of the Complainant apart from the

personal  guarantee  of  the  Directors  of  the  Complainant  and  equitable

mortgage/residential house of one of the Directors and plant & machinery

installed at the above said factory as collateral security. The Bank also got

insured  the  factory  building  as  well  as  the  stocks  from the  Insurance

Company  for  which  premium  was  paid  by  debiting  the  account  of

Complainant by the Bank.  

10. The grievance of the Complainant is that the Insurance Company

has appointed one surveyor after another. The first surveyor- M/s Sunil J.

Vora & Associates has accepted the damage preferred by the Complainant

5

to the extent of Rs. 54,93,865/- whereas, the second surveyor- M/s ABM

Engineers & Consultants reduced the amount to Rs. 24,76,585/- and the

third surveyor-R.G. Verma repudiated the total claim.  

11. In respect of second survey report, it is pointed out that Shri B. S.

Aggarwal of the surveyor- M/s ABM Engineers & Consultants attended the

meeting  in  the  office  of  the  Complainant  which  was  attended  by  the

Officers of the Insurance Company. The Complainant submitted a letter to

the Regional Manager of the Insurance Company as well as to the Branch

Office at Delhi apart from the Grievance Cell, Mumbai on 15.01.2002. Shri

B.S. Aggarwal communicated a letter dated 30.01.2002 pointing out that

the letter dated 15.01.2002 submitted by the Complainant was misleading

as the Complainant could not make available accounting records to the

Surveyor.  

12. The Complainant again submitted a letter dated 18.3.2002 aggrieved

against the actions of the surveyor to the various officers of the Insurance

Company. The Complainant also pointed out that the Insurance Company

could not appoint one surveyor after another. It was open to the Insurance

Company to apply to the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority

to  appoint  an  independent  Surveyor  under  Section  64  UM  (3)  of  the

Insurance Act, 19383 but the Insurance Company could not appoint one

surveyor after another till such time, it is successful in getting a report of

total repudiation of the claim of the Complainant. The relevant provisions

of the 1938 Act read as under:-

“(2) No claim in respect of a loss which has occurred in India and requiring to be paid or settled in India equal to or exceeding twenty thousand rupees in value on any  policy  of  insurance,  arising  or  intimated  to  an

3 1938 Act

6

insurer at any time after the expiry of a period of one year  from  the  commencement  of  the  Insurance (Amendment)  Act,  1968,  shall,  unless  otherwise directed by the Authority, be admitted for payment or settled by the insurer unless he has obtained a report, on the loss that has occurred, from a person who holds a licence issued under this section to act as a surveyor or  loss  assessor  (hereafter  referred  to  as  "approved surveyor or loss assessors) :

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed  to  take  away  or  abridge  the  right  of  the insurer  to  pay  or  settle  any  claim  at  any  amount different from the amount assessed by the approved surveyor or loss assessor.  (3) The Authority may, at any time, in respect of any claim of the nature referred to in sub-section (2), call for  an  independent  report  from any  other  approved surveyor or loss assessor specified by him and such surveyor or loss assessor shall furnish such report to the Authority within such time as may be specified by the Authority or if no time limit has been specified by him  within  reasonable  time  and  the  cost  of,  or incidental to, such report shall be borne by the insurer. (4) The Authority may, on receipt of a report referred to in sub-section (3), issue such directions as he may consider  necessary with regard to the settlement of the claim including any direction to settle a claim at a figure  less  than,  or  more  than,  that  at  which  it  is proposed to settle it or it was settled and the insurer shall be bound to comply with such directions:  

Provided  that  where  the  Authority  issues  a direction for settling a claim at a figure lower than that at which it has already been settled, the insurer shall be deemed to comply with such direction if he satisfies the Authority that all reasonable steps with due regard to the question whether  the expenditure involved is not  disproportionate  to  the  amount  required  to  be recovered, have been taken with due dispatch by him:

Provided  further  that  no  direction  for  the payment  of  a  lesser  sum shall  be  made where  the amount of the claim has already been paid and the Authority is of opinion that the recovery of the amount paid  in  excess  would  cause  undue  hardship  to  the insured:  

Provided also  that  nothing  in  this  section  shall relieve the insurer from any liability, civil or criminal, to  which  he  would  have  been  subject  but  for  the provisions of this sub-section.”

7

13. In  the  written  statement  filed  before  the  Commissioner,  the

Insurance Company explained the reason for appointing another Surveyor

after the report of Surveyor- M/s Sunil J. Vora & Associates was submitted

on 01.02.2001. It was, inter-alia, asserted that quantum of loss has been

assessed  without  verifying  and providing  any  documents  and  that  the

clarification sought from the Surveyor has not led to any response. The

Insurance  Company  concluded  the  reasons  for  appointing  another

Surveyor in para 3.9 of its reply which reads as under:-   

“Respondent No.1 sought clarification from the Surveyors as well as the insured on certain points but  neither  the  Surveyors  nor  the  insured submitted  the  clarification  or  the  desired documents.  In  the  absence  of  the  said clarification/documents, Respondent No. 1 was not able  to  ascertain  the  cost  of  the  shirts.  The Surveyors had taken the value of the shirts at Rs. 235/- but it was not clear from where he had taken the  said  value.  On  the  other  hand,  the Complainant had taken the order @ 5.9 US$ i.e. Rs. 271/- and adding overhead expenses the cost comes  Rs.  295/-  per  shirt.  The  Preliminary Surveyor in his report dated 20th July, 2000, also did not give the basis of the estimate of loss at Rs. 75,00,000/-. The letters dated 11th May, 2001 was written to the Preliminary Surveyor asking about the basis of the figure of Rs. 75,00,000/- which was not  responded.  This  was  followed  by  reminder dated  28th June,  2001  which  was  also  not responded. The letters dated 11th May, 2001 and 28th June, 2001 is Annexure R-14 and R-15 hereto”.

14. Such are the only reasons available in the written statement as to

why another Surveyor was appointed. No other record has been furnished

for appointment of M/s ABM Engineers & Consultants, second surveyor on

22.08.2001. The Commission in its order held as under:-  

8

“22.  There  is  no  evidence  on  record  that  the appointment of Surveyor Nos. 2, 3 & 4 was with the  consent  of  the  Head  Quarters.   After  the second Surveyor, there is no reasoning given as to why  third  and  fourth  Surveyors  were  appointed. This is an admitted fact that the fire broke out in the premises of the complainant. All the first three Surveyors spoke about this fact in one voice. Even the Investigator/Fourth Surveyor, did not deny the happening  of  incident  and  admitted  in  no uncertain terms that shirts worth rupees few lakhs must  have  been  burnt.  There  can  be  no conflictions  on  the  point  that  some  loss  was occurred to the complainant. Whether the Order or LCs  were  fake  or  manipulated  or  the  Order  for import of shirts could not be proved or Mr.  Ajay Verma was involved in a criminal case has got no bearing  on  this  case.  There  is  no  inkling  on evidence  of  record  that  Mr.  Ajay  Verma  was involved in this particular case.

23. It cannot be laid down as a rule of thumb that the Surveyor cannot ask for other documents after he  has  informed  the  complainant  that  the documents are complete. There lies no rub.

24. Under  these  circumstances,  we  have  no hesitation to accept the second Surveyor, M/s Sunil J. Vohra’s report. The same is partly accepted and we allow the complaint and direct the Insurance Company, OP1, to pay a sum of Rs. 54,93,865/- to the complainant, within 45 days from the receipt of  this  order,  otherwise,  it  will  carry  interest  @ 10%  p.a.,  till  its  realization.  In  view  of  peculiar facts of this case, there is no order as to costs or pendente lite interest.”

15. The learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company argued

that  the  Commission  has  gravely  erred  in  law  in  not  examining  the

question whether letter of credit was fake or manipulated or that the order

of import of shirts could not be proved or Mr. Ajay Verma was involved in a

criminal case as it was held that such facts have no bearing on this case.

Learned  counsel  for  the  Appellant-Insurance  Company  relies  upon  an

9

order passed by this Court as reported in Sri Venkateswara Syndicate

vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited4 which case has examined

Section 64 UM of the 1938 Act to hold that there is no prohibition in the

Act  for  appointment  of  another  Surveyor-  M/s  ABM  Engineers  &

Consultants  by  the  Insurance  Company  except  that  the  Insurance

Company  has  to  record  reasons  for  not  accepting  the  report  of  the

Surveyor-  M/s  Sunil  J.  Vora  &  Associates.  Therefore,  the  Insurance

Company has rightly appointed another Surveyor.  

16. The  Insurance  Company  relied  upon  newspaper  report  dated

09.05.2002 published in Punjab Kesari that the Delhi Police has arrested

three persons on the basis of forged documents duping exporters. It was

the  said  newspaper  report  which  was  made  basis  of  appointing  yet

another Surveyor. The relevant extract from the written statement reads

as under:-

“3.12 On 9th May, 2002, it was reported in the “Punjab  Kesari”  newspaper  that  Delhi  Police  has arrested a gang of three persons who had duped the exporters of crores of rupees on the basis of forged documents.  It  also came to the notice  of Respondent  No.  1  that  Mr.  Ajay  Verma  of  M/s. Sirdanwal Overseas from whom, the Complainant is alleged to have dealings for LC and procurement of  the  export  order  had  been  arrested  in  a cheating case in FIR No. 98 dated 6th April, 2002, P.S.  Chitranjan Park,  under Sections 420/406/12B of  the  Indian  Penal  Code.  The  newspaper report dated  9th May,  2002  is  Annexure  R-25  hereto. Respondent  No.  1  appointed  Shri  R.G.  Verma, Chartered Accountant to conduct an investigation of  the  claim.  Shri  R.G.  Verma  conducted  the detailed  investigation  and  submitted  his  report dated 28th May, 2002 in which he observed that the claim was fraudulent. The report of Shri R.G. Verma  is  Annexure  R-26  hereto.  The  following documents were collected by the investigator:-

4 (2009) 8 SCC 507

10

i. List of bail applications dated 24th May, 2002. ii. FIR NO. 98 dated 6th April, 2002. iii. Application for request for judicial custody by  

the Accused. iv. Respondent No. 1 took the photographs of the  

office of S.V. Traders which are Annexure R-27  hereto”.

17. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Complainant rebutted

the arguments raised and referred to communication dated 07.12.2001

addressed  by  the  Head  Office  of  the  Insurance  Company  to  its  Delhi

Regional Office, inter-alia, to the facts that Head Office has appointed M/s

Sunil J. Vohra & Associates as the final Surveyor and that the Head Office

is  unable  to  understand  as  to  why  and  who  has  appointed  M/s  ABM

Engineers & Consultants as Surveyor. The extracts from the said letter

read as under: -  

“07.12.2001

DELHI RO II Kind  Attn.  :  MR.  S.  MAMMAN,  ASSTT.  GEN. MANAGER, Re: Fire Claim under Policy No. 11/310830/99/9010 A/c  M/s. Luxra Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.  Date of Loss : 11/12.7.2000

We note from our record that based on your request  vide  letter  dt.  24.7.2000,  HO  had appointed Sunil  J.  Vora & Associates as the Final Surveyor and we have communicated the decision to  you  vide  our  letter  dt.  27.7.2000.  we understand that  surveyor  had  already submitted their report also.

We  have  received  a  bunch  of  papers  dt. 20.11.01 from M/s ABM Engineers and Consultants pertaining  to  this  claim.  We  are  unable  to understand what for they are appointed and who has appointed them. Please note that once HO has appointed a surveyor, you cannot appoint surveyor

11

or investigator without consulting HO. Please let us have  your  explanation  to  enable  us  to  apprise Management.

We  note  that  correspondence  by  M/s.  ABM Engineers and Consultants are directly addressed to the Senior Branch Manager only and copies are seen  forwarded  to  various  higher  offices.  Kindly inform us the current status of this claim also for our records.”

18. Before  considering  the  respective  contentions  of  the  parties,  the

judgment in  Sri Venkateswara (supra) is required to be examined. In

the  said  judgment,  this  Court  has  upheld  the  right  of  the  Insurance

Company to appoint Surveyor but such right can be exercised for valid

reasons  or  if  the  report  is  found  to  be  arbitrary  and  that  Insurance

Company must give cogent reasons without which it is not free to appoint

the second Surveyor. The relevant extracts of the judgment read as under:

-  

“33. Scheme of Section 64-UM, particularly of sub- sections  (2),  (3)  and  (4)  would  show  that  the insurer cannot appoint a second surveyor just as a matter of course. If for any valid reason the report of  the surveyor  is  not  acceptable  to  the insurer may  be  for  the  reason  if  there  are  inherent defects,  if  it  is  found to  be  arbitrary,  excessive, exaggerated, etc., it must specify cogent reasons, without which it is not free to appoint the second surveyor  or  surveyors  till  it  gets  a  report  which would satisfy its interest.  Alternatively, it  can be stated  that  there  must  be  sufficient  ground  to disagree with  the findings of  surveyor/surveyors. There  is  no  prohibition  in  the  Insurance  Act  for appointment of second surveyor by the insurance company,  but  while  doing  so,  the  insurance company has to give satisfactory reasons for not accepting the report of the first surveyor and the need to appoint second surveyor.

xxx xxx xxx

35. In our considered view, the Insurance Act only mandates that while settling a claim, assistance of a  surveyor  should  be  taken  but  it  does  not  go further and say that the insurer would be bound by whatever the surveyor has assessed or quantified; if  for any reason, the insurer is of  the view that

12

certain  material  facts  ought  to  have been taken into  consideration while  framing a  report  by the surveyor  and  if  it  is  not  done,  it  can  certainly depute  another  surveyor  for  the  purpose  of conducting  a  fresh  survey  to  estimate  the  loss suffered by the insured.

xxx    xxx    xxx  

37. The  option  to  accept  or  not  to  accept  the report is with the insurer. However, if the rejection of  the  report  is  arbitrary  and  based  on  no acceptable reasons, the courts or other forums can definitely step in and correct the error committed by the insurer while repudiating the claim of the insured.  We  hasten  to  add,  if  the  reports  are prepared  in  good  faith,  with  due  application  of mind and in the absence of any error or ill motive, the insurance company is not expected to reject the report of the surveyors”.

19. In  view  of  above,  the  question  to  be  examined  is  whether  the

Insurance Company has reasons or  there were inherent  defects  in  the

survey report  of  Surveyor-  M/s  Sunil  J.  Vora  & Associates  or  that  such

report is arbitrary, excessive and exaggerated, before another Surveyor

could be appointed.

20. The Surveyor- M/s Sunil J. Vora & Associates was appointed by Head

Office  of  the  Insurance  Company.  The  Head  Office  of  the  Insurance

Company has communicated to  the Regional/  Branch Office as to  why

another  Surveyor  has  been  appointed.  In  view  of  said  fact,  the

appointment of another surveyor could not be justified when a conscious

decision has been communicated by the Head Office of not approving the

appointment of second surveyor.

21. Still  further,  the  reasoning  given  by  the  local  office  is  that  the

Surveyor- M/s Sunil  J.  Vora & Associates has not clarified certain points

13

when clarification was sought for. The said reason stands answered even

in  the  report  of  Surveyor-  M/s  ABM  Engineers  &  Consultants.  Such

surveyor  has  considered  the  report  of  the  Canara  Bank  in  respect  of

stocks  statement.  Such  stocks  statement  was  brushed  aside  for  the

reason that if said stocks statement was correct then as to why letter of

credit could not be materialised. The Complainant has explained that it

was on 15.06.2000, it has been communicated to the consignee to have

inspection of the stocks before exporting the consignment. The consignee

has not inspected the stocks which led to the extension of letter of credit

up to 08.08.2000. It was argued that letter of credit is to facilitate receipt

of money from the exporter and once the stock of the Complainant has

been verified by the Canara Bank, which had the first charge over the

property, therefore, such verification of stock could not be doubted by the

Insurance Company only for the reason that letter of credit could not be

materialised. The verification of the stocks by the Canara Bank which had

primary charge on the stocks could not be doubted in the manner, the

surveyor- M/s ABM Engineers & Consultants has reported.

22.  Still further, it is explained in the affidavit that the letter of credit was

by  M/s  Sirdanwal  Overseas  which  was  endorsed  to  Gurcharan  Singh

Company Pvt. Ltd. PTE Singapore.  Therefore, the letter of  credit was a

valid document which could not be said not to be genuine only on the

basis  of  reason  that  such  letter  of  credit  was  not  in  favour  of  the

Complainant when the order was placed on the Complainant by the above

said Singapore based firm.

14

23. Mr. Ajay Verma is an accused in FIR in which there is no allegation in

respect of export by the Complainant. The allegation against Ajay Verma

is of duping the exporters whereas, there is no such or similar allegation

against  the Complainant.  The Complainant has  also averred that  there

was  endorsement  by  the  Apparel  Export  Promotion  Council,  therefore

factually such assertion of the Insurance Company is incorrect.  

24. Thus,  we  find  that  there  was  no  valid  reason  for  the  Insurance

Company not to accept the report  of  the surveyor-  M/s Sunil  J.  Vora &

Associates nor there is any proof that such report is arbitrary & excessive.

There are no cogent reasons to appoint Surveyors time and again till such

time one Surveyor gives a report which could satisfy the interest of the

Insurance Company.

25. In  fact,  in  the  present  case  it  is  evident  that  the  claim  of  Rs.

54,93,865/- was accepted by the surveyor- M/s Sunil J. Vora & Associates.

The  second  surveyor-  M/s  ABM Engineers  &  Consultants  accepted  the

claim in  the  sum of  Rs.  24,76,585/-.  The  third  surveyor  -  R.G.  Verma

recommended total repudiation of claim. It is the third Surveyor’s report

which sub-served the interest of the Insurance Company which was made

basis of repudiation of the claim of the Complainant on the same day,

when the report was furnished. We find that in view of the judgment in Sri

Venkateswara (supra),  it  is not open to appoint another Surveyor till

such time, it gets a report in its favour.  In fact, the appointment of the

Surveyors was to repudiate the claim of the Complainant on one pretext

or the other.  

15

26. Thus,  we  do  not  find  any  illegality  in  the  order  passed  by  the

Commission. Consequently, Civil Appeal No. 9668 of 2014 is dismissed.  

27. However, we find that the Commission has not granted interest on

the amount found due and payable to the Complainant. Therefore, Civil

Appeal Nos.4371-72 0f 2015 preferred by the Complainant are allowed.

The Complainant shall  be entitled to the interest on the amount of Rs.

54,93,865/- at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of petition

till the payment of the amount.  

……………………...……………………………..J. (Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud)

…………………..………………..……………….J.     (Hemant Gupta)

New Delhi May 1, 2019

16