THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. versus M/S. PROTECTION MANUFACTURERS PVT. LTD.

Citation: [2010] 8 S.C.R. 61 · Decided: 08-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2010] 8 S.C.R. 61 
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. 
v. 
M/S. PROTECTION MANUFACTURERS PVT. LTD. 
(Civil Appeal No. 312 of 2006) 
JULY 8, 2010 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND ·CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Insurance - Fire insurance - Surveyors appointed by 
Insurance Company finding the cause of fire to be accidental 
A 
B 
- Insurance Company appointing Investigator to find out C 
cause of fire - Investigator finding that fire could be an act of 
arson by vested interest - Insurance company obtaining 
opinion of former Chief Justice of India regarding cause of fire 
- Chief Justice discarding the report of Investigator, opining 
that fire was accidental - Complaint - National Commission 
D 
allowing the claim - On appeal, held: Report of the Joint 
Surveyors were .correct - Report of the Investigator is liable 
to be discarded as it was tailor-made intended to benefit the 
Insurance Company - Appointment of Investigators was also 
not correct as the Insurance Company should have applied E 
to the Regulatory Authority under Insurance Act, for second 
opinion - Insurance Act, 1938 - s. 64 UM - Evidence Act, 
1872 - s. 45 - Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 
Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 45 :... Opinion of retired Chief 
Justice of India after analysis of survey and investigation 
F 
reports - Admissibility of the opinion - Held: The opinion of 
the Chief Justice is admissible in evidence as it is not an 
opfnion as contemplated uls. 45, but an independent and 
unbiased analysis of the reports and the materials provided 
·to him. 
G 
The factory of the respondent, which was covered by 
Fire Insurance Policy, caught fire. The appellant-
insurance company appointed a surveyor to conduct a 
61 
H 
62 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2010] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
preliminary spot survey. In the preliminary report, cause 
of fire was not specified. Thereafter insurance company 
appointed joint surveyor to conduct final survey. Joint 
surveyor estimated the loss suffered by the respondent 
to be Rs. 2,37,09,372/-. The final report stated that exact 
B 
cause of fire was not known. Insurance company, then 
appointed an investigator tv conduct an investigation 
into the cause of fire and to assess the loss. The 
investigator assessed the loss suffered to be Rs. 
1, 10,67 ,230/-. As to the cause of fire, he stated that fire 
c could be attributed to an act of 'arson' by vested interest 
for some pecuniary benefits. Joint surveyors criticized 
the report of the investigator stating that it was tailor-
made in order to fit the loss assessed by the Insurance 
Company. Insurance company, therefore, decided to 
0 
obtain views of the former Chief Justice of India as to the 
cause of fire. The Chief Justice concluded that the fire 
was accidental and was not an act of arson. 
E 
F 
As the claim of the respondent was not settled by the 
Insurance Company, respondent filed a complaint. 
National Commission for Consumer Disputes Redressal 
directed the Insurance Company to pay to the 
respondent a sum of Rs. 2,26,36, 170/- with 12% interest 
p.a., w.e.f. 1.7.2000 and to pay Rs. 1 lakh towards 
compensation. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The report of the Joint Surveyors 
indicates that the exact cause of the fire was not known, 
though it could be due to a short circuit. The observation 
G of the Investigators that the fire could reasonably be 
attributed to an act of "arson" by vested interests, for 
some pecuniary benefit, is without any factual basis. 
Apart from the aforesaid observation made at the end of 
the report, no foundation has been laid down in the 
H 
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. PROTECTION 
63 
MANUFACTURERS PVT. LTD. 
report for such an observation which literally appears out A 
of the blues. [Para 31) [77-F-H; 78-A] 
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harjeet Rice Mills (2005) 
6 sec 45; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. VS. 
Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. and Ors. (2000) 10 SCC 19; B 
. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal vs. Regency Hospital Ltd. arid Ors. 
(2009) 9 sec 709, distinguished. 
1.2. Even if the views expressed by the Joint 
Surveyors, on the reports submitted by the Investigators 
are discounted, although they were appointed by the C 
Insurance Company itself, the views obtained by the 
Insurance Company from former Chief Justice cannot be 
Ignored. [Parc;i 32) [78-8-C] 
1.3. It is not correct to say that the opinion of the D 
retired Chief Justice was not admissible in evidence in 
view of s. 45 of Evidence Act, 1872, 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.