Summary
The Supreme Court restored dismissal of a rice mill’s insurance complaint. The insurer’s preliminary survey, structural opinion, investigation and final survey consistently attributed collapse to overloading, rather than the alleged lorry impact. Obtaining further reports served a demonstrated investigative need and was not an attempt to procure a favourable assessment. The NCDRC had unreasonably displaced the State Commission’s reasoned evaluation of the physical evidence and consistent reports.
Issues
- Whether obtaining further expert and survey reports unjustifiably undermined repudiation of the mill’s alleged collision-loss claim.
Provisions considered
- Section 64-UM(2), Insurance Act, 1938A licensed survey report is required for the covered claim, but the insurer is not bound to settle at its assessment; further surveys require cogent reasons and cannot be commissioned merely to secure a favourable report. (¶¶ 10, 11, 13, 14)
Held
- Successive surveyors cannot be appointed routinely to obtain a tailor-made report. Necessity, deficiencies and the relevant facts must support the insurer’s reasons for a further assessment. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- Here the prompt preliminary survey identified anomalies and recommended structural expertise. The later structural, investigative and final reports consistently supported overloading rather than impact, showing a legitimate investigation without mala fides. (¶¶ 3, 4, 12, 15, 16)
- The alleged collision was unsupported by impact marks on the failed columns or damage to the lorry, and the first intimation had not referred to it. These cogent grounds supported the State Commission’s rejection of the complaint; the NCDRC’s contrary view did not accord with the evidence or governing precedent. (¶¶ 5, 15, 16)
Result
Appeal allowed; NCDRC judgment dated 4 February 2019 set aside and consumer complaint dismissed. No costs.