2025 (4) TMI 358 - SC - Indian Laws

Liability of appellant United India Insurance Co. Ltd. to compensate the respondent M/s. Park Leather Industries Ltd. under the insurance policy for the damage and loss suffered due to the collapse of the factory shed - correct determination of quantum of compensation payable to the respondent - HELD THAT - Having noted that the surveyor appointed by the appellant had assessed the damage at a much lesser figure i.e. Rs.8, 89, 176/- the NCDRC could not have assumed that the appellant had mutely accepted the enhanced estimation of Rs.46, 97, 085/- as per the unilateral assessment made by the surveyor appointed by the respondent. It is not in dispute that this assessment was undertaken by the respondent s surveyor without putting the appellant on notice and without its participation. In any event it is patently clear that the NCDRC did not independently apply its mind to the quantification of the claim and blindly acted upon the alleged failure of the appellant to deny the assessment in the surveyor s report produced by the respondent. This impression was unfounded and erroneous. It would therefore be just and proper that the NCDRC undertakes that exercise now by allowing the parties to adduce evidence in that regard and then decide the amount that would be payable to the respondent under the insurance policy. Conclusion - The determination of liability under the insurance policy upheld but the issue of quantum of compensation remitted to the NCDRC for fresh assessment. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment include:

1. Whether the appellant, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., was liable to compensate the respondent, M/s. Park Leather Industries Ltd., under the insurance policy for the damage and loss suffered due to the collapse of the factory shed.

2. Whether the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) correctly determined the quantum of compensation payable to the respondent.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Liability under the Insurance Policy

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The case revolves around the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, under which the respondent filed a complaint with the NCDRC. The insurance policy in question covered fire and special perils, including inundation.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the appellant did not contest its liability to compensate the respondent under the insurance policy. The appellant's primary contention was focused on the quantum of compensation determined by the NCDRC.

Key Evidence and Findings: The respondent claimed that the factory shed collapsed due to heavy rainfall, which was covered under the policy as inundation. The appellant initially repudiated the claim, arguing that the damage was due to gradual weakening and seepage, not covered by the policy.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court accepted the NCDRC's determination of liability, as the appellant did not dispute this aspect. The focus shifted to the assessment of compensation.

2. Quantum of Compensation

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The determination of compensation involves assessing the actual loss suffered, as evidenced by surveyor reports and other relevant documentation.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found that the NCDRC erred in its assessment of compensation. The NCDRC relied solely on the respondent's surveyor report, which was introduced in a rejoinder, without giving the appellant an opportunity to contest it.

Key Evidence and Findings: The respondent's surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.46,97,085/-, while the appellant's surveyor assessed it at Rs.8,89,176/-. The NCDRC accepted the respondent's assessment without independent verification or consideration of the appellant's position.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court emphasized that the NCDRC should have independently evaluated the evidence and allowed both parties to present their arguments regarding the quantum of compensation.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant argued that it could not contest the respondent's surveyor report as it was introduced after the written statement was filed. The Court agreed, indicating that the NCDRC's reliance on the respondent's report without proper scrutiny was unjustified.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the NCDRC must reassess the quantum of compensation by allowing both parties to present evidence and arguments. The matter was remitted to the NCDRC for fresh consideration.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Court stated, "The NCDRC did not independently apply its mind to the quantification of the claim and blindly acted upon the alleged failure of the appellant to deny the assessment in the surveyor's report produced by the respondent."

Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the principle that tribunals must independently assess evidence and allow parties to contest claims, especially when new evidence is introduced after initial pleadings.

Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court upheld the determination of liability under the insurance policy but remitted the issue of quantum of compensation to the NCDRC for fresh assessment.