9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... int No. 171 of 2008 filed by the respondent herein, viz., M/s. Park Leather Industries Ltd., Agra. 2. While issuing notice in the appeal on 06.02.2023, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned judgment, subject to the the appellant depositing 50% of the amount awarded within a time frame. Upon such deposit being made, the same was directed to be invested in a fixed deposit with auto-renewal facility. Thereupon, the appellant deposited Rs.57,12,874/- with the Registry and the same was placed in a fixed deposit. As on date, the deposit value stands at Rs.63,60,833/-. 3. The respondent filed the subject complaint before the NCDRC under Section 21(a)(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therein, it stated that it had taken a compre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had confirmed that the damage was caused by inundation and assessed the loss at Rs.46,97,085/-. The respondent stated that its premises were renovated in 2003 and the insured shed/factory buildings were in sound condition, obviating the possibility of collapse due to weakening of walls or seepage. 5. By the impugned judgment, the NCDRC held that the appellant was liable to compensate the respondent under the insurance policy for the damage and loss suffered by it. As regards the quantum of compensation, the NCDRC stated, in paragraph 24 of the judgment, as under : 'Regarding the question of compensation, the Surveyor appointed by the Complainant assessed the loss at Rs.46,97,085/-. In the written statement, filed by the Insurance Company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 10. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
