Expert
30-03-2009, 08:04 AM
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. VENKATESHAPPA AND ANR.
Brief facts of the case are that the insured was a villager who obtained a loan from bank for starting his business of silk-rearing. An insurance cover was obtained from the above insurance company and the standard of construction was certified as class- I construction. The building collapsed due to alleged lightening after a few days of taking the insurance cover. The insured filed a claim with the insurer which was repudiated on the ground that the building collapsed on account of the poor quality of the material and poor standard of constructions. The district forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to the complainant with interest. Against this order the insurer went in appeal before the State commission which rejected the same as well. The insurer preferred an appeal before the National commission where the contention of the insurer was that the surveyor’s report was not properly discussed or given importance to as per the settled law. The surveyor’s opinion in the report clearly laid down that according to his assessment and as confirmed by the insured’s engineer the cause for collapse of roofing was deficiency in the quality and standard of construction and materials used. The fire policy issued did not cover the above type of perils. The National commission observed “the surveyor had based his report on surmises as there was no report of any laboratory commenting on the quality of the materials used. A report based on surmises and unsubstantiated finding has no legs to stand on and needs to be rejected. It was not in dispute that at the time of insurance cover the building was certified as class-I construction. The poor villager/insured had got the building constructed from someone, it was for the insurers to satisfy
themselves before insuring the building about the quality of material used and other points, which were now proposed to be raised after the event. It appears that when it comes to collecting the premium the insurance company merrily accepts that with great glee, but when anything happens to the contrary they decide not to settle the claim for reasons best known to them. It is time that insurance company puts its own house in order. If that was a first class construction then nothing would have happened to the contrary within 4 months.”The insured’s son and some villagers had also given affidavits supporting the factum of lightning but nothing contrary had been brought on record by the insurer to rebut these facts. Hence appeal of insurer was dismissed.
Held:- Insurer liable to pay the amount to insured/complainant.
Brief facts of the case are that the insured was a villager who obtained a loan from bank for starting his business of silk-rearing. An insurance cover was obtained from the above insurance company and the standard of construction was certified as class- I construction. The building collapsed due to alleged lightening after a few days of taking the insurance cover. The insured filed a claim with the insurer which was repudiated on the ground that the building collapsed on account of the poor quality of the material and poor standard of constructions. The district forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to the complainant with interest. Against this order the insurer went in appeal before the State commission which rejected the same as well. The insurer preferred an appeal before the National commission where the contention of the insurer was that the surveyor’s report was not properly discussed or given importance to as per the settled law. The surveyor’s opinion in the report clearly laid down that according to his assessment and as confirmed by the insured’s engineer the cause for collapse of roofing was deficiency in the quality and standard of construction and materials used. The fire policy issued did not cover the above type of perils. The National commission observed “the surveyor had based his report on surmises as there was no report of any laboratory commenting on the quality of the materials used. A report based on surmises and unsubstantiated finding has no legs to stand on and needs to be rejected. It was not in dispute that at the time of insurance cover the building was certified as class-I construction. The poor villager/insured had got the building constructed from someone, it was for the insurers to satisfy
themselves before insuring the building about the quality of material used and other points, which were now proposed to be raised after the event. It appears that when it comes to collecting the premium the insurance company merrily accepts that with great glee, but when anything happens to the contrary they decide not to settle the claim for reasons best known to them. It is time that insurance company puts its own house in order. If that was a first class construction then nothing would have happened to the contrary within 4 months.”The insured’s son and some villagers had also given affidavits supporting the factum of lightning but nothing contrary had been brought on record by the insurer to rebut these facts. Hence appeal of insurer was dismissed.
Held:- Insurer liable to pay the amount to insured/complainant.