Summary
The Court upheld the limited fire-insurance award based on the surveyor’s assessment. Conflicting stock records justified volumetric analysis, and the adopted fire-affected area, movement-space allowance and bale weight were supported by the evidence. A survey report was important but not conclusive; professional shortcomings or arbitrary treatment could establish deficient service. Once those defects were absent, the consumer forum was not to rework every technical detail as a civil court might. The insured’s appeal seeking a larger award was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether the surveyor’s rejection of stock records and volumetric assessment justified enhancement of the insurance award.
- What review of a survey report was permissible in a consumer complaint alleging deficient service.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(1)(g), Consumer Protection Act, 1986The insured had to establish a fault or inadequacy in the relevant service, rather than obtain reassessment merely because it sought a higher valuation. (¶¶ 30, 31, 32, 37, 38)
- Former Section 64-UM(1A) and (2), including proviso to (2), Insurance Act, 1938The applicable pre-2015 provisions required a licensed survey report for claims at the prescribed threshold and compliance with the professional code. The insurer could depart from the assessment, but not arbitrarily. (¶¶ 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38)
Held
- Material differences between the insured’s initial and revised stock records, lack of recent physical verification and its own use of volumetric estimates justified the surveyor’s method. The Court rejected the contention that reliable stock evidence had been arbitrarily ignored. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20)
- The contemporaneous inspection identified the area actually affected by fire, whereas later larger measurements reflected spreading during salvage. Allowance for movement gaps was logical even with forklifts, and the insured itself supplied the adopted 900 kg average bale weight. The objections did not undermine the assessment. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)
- A survey report is not the final word or immune from departure. Breach of the surveyor’s prescribed professional responsibilities, or arbitrary exercise of the insurer’s discretion concerning the report, may support a deficiency claim. (¶¶ 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37)
- Here no deficient performance, ad hoc assessment or arbitrariness was established. In that setting the consumer forum’s role did not extend to a forensic reworking of every detail of the survey report. The existing award, including its specified interest limitation, was left undisturbed. (¶¶ 8, 29, 30, 31, 38, 39)
Result
Appeal dismissed without costs; National Commission’s award based on the admitted assessed loss upheld.