ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1

Whether the Appeal filed before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is maintainable?

ISSUE 2

Whether ABGL can be held liable for violating the applicable IRDAI regulations on
policyholder’s Interests and on Surveyors?

ISSUE 3

Whether the judgement of Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal

Commission is justifiable?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IS

MAINTAINABLE

It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the instant special leave petition is
maintainable as there have arisen circumstances and involve a substantial question of law
which need to be addressed by this Court. Thus, the Petitioner has approached this Court
against the order of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under
Article 136 of the Indian Constitution.

2. ABGL CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR VIOLATING THE APPLICABLE

IRDAI REGULATIONS ON POLICYHOLDER’S INTERESTS AND ON
SURVEYORS

It is held that ABGL cannot be held liable for violating the Applicable IRDAI regulations on
Policy Holders interests and on surveyors. ABGL contested the complaint by filing a Reply
to the Complaint within 30-days of receipt of the complainant on the following grounds: (i)
the complaint must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, (ii) the complaint must be dismissed
for joining two separate causes of action in one complaint, (iii) the Tansen Group is not a
consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, (iv) Tansen
Commodities Ltd.’s insurance claim is correctly repudiated on the basis of the survey report
that there is no loss and there is breach of terms of the Policy, and (v) Tansen Spices. Ltd.’s
insurance claim is correctly repudiated for lack of coverage

3. THE JUDGEMENT OF HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE

REDRESSAL COMMISSION IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE

2
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
It is held that the judgement of Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute redressal commission is
noy justifiable. The impugned judgment of the NCDRC has incorrectly analysed the basis by
the insurer for the appointment of surveyors for the purpose of inspection and assessment.
The record to which we have adverted to earlier would indicate that immediately upon receipt
of an intimation of the incident, the insurer initially appointed a surveyor to submit a
preliminary survey report. The inspection was carried out on 19 April 2005 close on the heels
of the incident.

4.

3
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IS

MAINTAINABLE

1) It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the instant special leave petition 1 is
maintainable as there have arisen circumstances and involve a substantial question of law
which need to be addressed by this Court. Thus, the Petitioner has approached this Court
against the order of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under
Article 1362 of the Indian Constitution.
1.1 Judgement of National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission was not justified
2) In A.P.H.L.Conference, Shillong v. W.A. Sangma3, the Court observed: "The principal
test which must necessarily be present in determining the character of the authority as
commission is whether that authority is empowered to exercise any adjudicating power of
the state and whether the same has been conferred on it by any statute or a statutory rule.
3) It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the power under Article 136 has
been characterized as "an untrammelled reservoir of power incapable of being confined to
definitional bounds; the discretion conferred on the Supreme Court being subjected to
only one limitation i.e. the wisdom and good sense of justice of the judges 4. The exercise
of the power of the court is not circumscribed by any limitation as to who may invoke it5.

1
Hereinafter referred as SLP.
2
Article 136 in The Constitution Of Vindia:"Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to
appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by
any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any
court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces."
3
A.P.H.L.Conference, Shillong v. W.A. Sangma, AIR 1977 SC 2155.
4
Kunhayammed v. State of Orissa, AIR 2000 SC 2587.
5
Esher Singh v. State of A.P., (2004) 11 SCC 585.

4
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
4) Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal upon the party 6 but merely vests discretion in
the SC to interfere in exceptional cases 7." Under Article 136, the Court may generously
step in to impart justice and remedy injustice 8 and it is for the Apex Court to decide
whether to entertain an appeal or not 9. In the present case, the SLP filed is maintainable as
that it comes under the original petition as well as ABGL is not liable for violating the
applicable IRDAI Regulations on Policyholder’s Interests and on Surveyors.
5) It is most reverentially submitted that Under this Article, the shall have the power to grant
special leave to appeal: a) from any judgement, decree, determination, sentence or order,
judges." The exercise of the power of the court is not circumscribed by any limitation as
to who may invoke it." b) in any cause or matter, c) Passed or made by any court or
tribunal, in the territory of India 10. The expression "any cause or matter" is of a very wide
import11.
6) Even under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 had stated about approaching Supreme
Court as appeal within 30 days mentioned under Section 67 of the Consumer protection
Act, 2019. In the present case, the orders arises on 31/12/2023 and the appeal was filed on
05/01/2023.
7) It is respectfully submitted that in a plethora of cases 12, the Apex Court has heard appeals
from consumer commissions under an SLP. The Apex Court has interfered with decisions
of the commissions where the order was erroneous13, there was an error of law in the
tribunal decision14 and where the tribunal order was unjust15.
6
Supra Footnote 5:Kunhayammed; Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. v. Employees, AIR 1959
SC 633
7
State of Bombay v. Rusy Mistry, AIR 1960 SC 391; Municipal Board, Pratabgarh v. Mahendra Singh

Chawla, AIR 1982 SC 1493.

8
Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, AIR 2002 SC 2036.
9
Sales Tax Officer v. Shree Durga Oil Mills, AIR 1998 SC 591.
10
DURGA DAS BASU, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 14th edition, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa,
Nagpur.(2009); Pg. 827.
11
Jagatjit Distilling Ltd. v. State of Punjab, (1969) SC [CA 840/66, Dt. 29-04-1969].
12
J.K. Iron & Steel Co. v. Mazdur Union, AIR 1956 SC 231; CSIR v. K.G.S. Bhatt, AIR 1989 SC 1972;
Rajgarh Jute Mills v. Eastern Railway, AIR 1958 SC 525; S.S. Light Railway Co. v. U.D. Sugar Mills Ltd., AIR
1960 SC
695; Sovachand v. Commissioner., Income Tax, AIR 1959 SC 59.
13
Bhikaji Keshao v. Brij Lal Nandlal, AIR 1955 SC 610; Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing. Co. v. Union

of India, AIR 1976 SC 1785.

14
Kays Concern v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1525; Hindusatan Antibiotics v. Workmen, AIR 1967 SC 948.
15
Manoj Kumar Rai v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 882.

5
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
8) The Special Leave Appeal may be allowed in exceptional cases, such as, a breach of the
principles of natural justice by the order appealed against 16; or where the appeal to the SC
is on appoint which could not have been decided in the appeal under the ordinary law 17.
The existence of an alternative remedy is no ground for taking away the jurisdiction under
Article 13618.
9) Article 136 confers a wide discretionary power on the Supreme Court to interfere in
suitable cases. It is a special jurisdiction and a residuary power. It is extraordinary in its
amplitude, its limits, when it chases injustice, is the sky itself19.
10) The only uniform standard that can be laid down regarding these variety of cases is that
the power shall be exercised only where special circumstances are shown to exist 20, which
in the instant case are clearly present The powers under this Article are special and
extraordinary and the main object is to ensure that there has been no miscarriage of
justice21. The Constitutional Jurisdiction conferred by Art. 136 of the Constitution cannot
be limited or taken away by any legislation subordinate to the Constitution22.
11) If the question is settled by the highest Court or the general principles to be applied in
determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those
principles the question would not be a substantial question of law23.
12) To be ‘substantial’ a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of
the Land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the
case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned24

16
Mahadayala Premchandra v. C.T.O., AIR 1958 SC 667; Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v. Commissioner of

Income Tax, AIR 1955 SC 65.

17
Cf. Kanhaiyalal Lohia v., Commissioner of IT, AIR 1962 SC 1323.
18
Union of India v. Kishorilal Gupta & Bros., AIR 1959 SC 1362; Ram Dayal v. Narbada, AIR 1973 SC 804;
Nirma Ltd. v. Lurgi GMBH, AIR 2002 SC 3695; ITI ltd. V. Siemens Network Ltd., AIR 2002 SC 2308; Dipak
Chandra Ruhidas v. Chandan Kumar Sarkar, AIR 2003 SC 3701; Shail v. Manoj Kumar, AIR 2004 SC 3210;
Virender Kumar Rai v. Union of India, (2004) 13 SCC 463.
19
Ramakant Rai v Madan Rai, AIR 2004 SC 77; P.S.R. Sadanantham v. Arunachalam, (1980) 3 SCC 141;
Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh, AIR 1954 SC 520.
20
Bharat Bank v. Employees of Bharat Bank, AIR 1950 SC 188; Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169.
21
State of Rajashtan v. Sohan Lal, (2004) 5 SCC 573.
22
Mahendra Saree Emporium (II) v. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy, AIR 2004 SC 2489; Union Carbide Corporation v
Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 248; S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 386; Surya Dev Rai v.
Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675.
23
Sir Chunilal Mehta & Sons Ltd. v Century Spinning & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (1962) AIR 1314 (SC).
24
Santosh Hazari v Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179 (SC).

6
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
13) Hence, it is contended that the appeal is maintainable. It is humbly submitted before the
Hon’ble Court that the statutory bodies cannot Use the power to make rules and
regulations to enlarge the powers beyond the Scope intended by the legislature25.
14) It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Additional District Magistrate (Rev.)
Delhi Administration v. Shri Ram26 that it is a well-recognised principle That the
conferment of rulemaking power by an Act does not enable the rule Making authority to
make a rule which travels beyond the scope of enabling Act.
15) It is most respectfully submitted that it has been held by the Supreme Court in Harinagar
Sugar Mills Ltd. V. Shyam Sundar Jhunjhunwala and Ors27. that Tribunals act in a
judicial manner and even on evidence on oath, but they are not Part of the ordinary Courts
of Civil Judicature. They are very similar to courts but Are not courts.
16) It is further submitted that it has been held by Madras High Court in P.Sundarjan v. The
Deputy Registrar of National Green Tribunal and Ors 28. that NGT cannot suo-moto
cognizance of the matters.
17) The principal bench of NGT at Delhi in Bajinath Prajapati v. Ministry of Environment
and Forest29 has itself acknowledged that "it is mentionable that we are not conferred
with suo moto powers to proceed with the case."
18) This Court has held in Pritam Singh v. State reported in 1950 SCC 189 : 1950 SCR 453
at p. 45930: “Generally speaking this Court will not grant special leave, unless it is shown
that exceptional and special circumstances exist, that substantial and grave injustice has
been done and that the case in question presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a
review of the decision appealed against”. It was also said in that case that the view that
once an appeal has been admitted by special leave the entire case is at large and that the
appellant is free to contest all the findings of fact and raise every point which could be
raised in the High Court is wrong. Only those points can be urged at the final hearing of
the appeal which are fit to be urged at the preliminary stage when leave to appeal is asked
for. This principle was stated, it is true, in a criminal case but it is of as much significance
in civil cases as in the trial of criminal appeals31.

25
Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram, AIR1975SC1331
26
Additional District Magistrate (Rev.) Delhi Administration v. Shri Ram, AIR 2000 SC 2143
27
Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. V. Shyam Sundar Jhunjhunwala and Ors , AIR 1961 SC 1669
28
P.Sundarjan v. The Deputy Registrar of National Green Tribunal and Ors , 2015 (4) CTC 353
29
Bajinath Prajapati v. Ministry of Environment and Forest , NGT Appeal No. 18/2011
30
Pritam Singh v. State reported in 1950 SCC 189 : 1950 SCR 453 at p. 459
31
Murtaza and Sons and Another v. Nazir Mohd. Khan and Others reported (1970) 3 SCC 876].

7
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
19) In Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal,
reported in (1955) 1 SCR 941 : AIR 1955 SC 65 32 made the following observations: “It is
not possible to define with any precision the limitations on the exercise of the
discretionary jurisdiction vested in this Court by the constitutional provision made in
article 136. The limitations, whatever they be, are implicit in the nature and character of
the power itself. It being an exceptional and overriding power, naturally it has to be
exercised sparingly and with caution and only in special and extraordinary situations.
20) Beyond that it is not possible to fetter the exercise of this power by any set formula or
rule. All that can be said is that the Constitution having trusted the wisdom and good
sense of the Judges of this Court in this matter, that itself is a sufficient safeguard and
guarantee that the power will only be used to advance the cause of justice, and that its
exercise will be governed by well-established principles which govern the exercise of
overriding constitutional powers. It is, however, plain that when the Court reaches the
conclusion that a person has been dealt with arbitrarily or that a court or tribunal within
the territory of India has not given a fair deal to a litigant, then no technical hurdles of any
kind like the finality of finding of facts or otherwise can stand in the way of the exercise
of this power because the whole intent and purpose of this article is that it is the duty of
this Court to see that injustice is not perpetuated or perpetrated by decisions of Courts and
tribunals because certain laws have made the decisions of these Courts or tribunals final
and conclusive. Hence, contended that ABGL has challenged the final judgement and
order dated 31/12/2022 passed by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a Civil Appeal which is
maintainable.

32
Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, reported in (1955) 1 SCR 941 :
AIR 1955 SC 65

8
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 2. ABGL CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR VIOLATING THE APPLICABLE
IRDAI REGULATIONS ON POLICYHOLDER’S INTERESTS AND ON
SURVEYORS

21) It is held that ABGL cannot be held liable for violating the Applicable IRDAI regulations
on Policy Holders interests and on surveyors. ABGL contested the complaint by filing a
Reply to the Complaint within 30-days of receipt of the complainant on the following
grounds: (i) the complaint must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, (ii) the complaint
must be dismissed for joining two separate causes of action in one complaint, (iii) the
Tansen Group is not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act,
2019, (iv) Tansen Commodities Ltd.’s insurance claim is correctly repudiated on the basis
of the survey report that there is no loss and there is breach of terms of the Policy, and (v)
Tansen Spices. Ltd.’s insurance claim is correctly repudiated for lack of coverage. The
allegations on unfair trade practice were flatly denied as wrong and incorrect. The most
important regulations governing protection of policyholders interest is the Insurance
Regulatory and Development Authority of India (Protection of Policyholders’ Interests)
Regulations, 2002
22) In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (zc) of sub-section (2) of section 114A of
the Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938) read with sections 14 and 26 of the Insurance
Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999 (41 of 1999), the Authority, in
consultation with the Insurance Advisory Committee, made the regulations.
23) An insured or the claimant shall give notice to the insurer of any loss arising under
contract of insurance at the earliest or within such extended time as may be allowed by
the insurer. On receipt of such a communication, a general insurer shall respond
immediately and give clear indication to the insured on the procedures that he should
follow. In cases where a surveyor has to be appointed for assessing a loss/ claim, it shall
be so done within 72 hours of the receipt of intimation from the insured33.
24) In the case in hand, ABGL through a letter dated 31/03/2022, issued by its Head Office at
Mumbai, repudiated both the insurance claims of the Tansen Group. The first part of the
letter read as follows: “In reference to the insurance claim of Tansen Commodities Ltd.
arising from the alleged mistaken trade on the MCX on 28/02/2020 we are in receipt of

33
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Paresh Mohanlal Parmar, Civil Appeal No. 10398/2011

9
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 the Report of the Surveyor-1 and the related documents submitted by Tansen
Commodities Ltd. After considering the Final Survey Report dated 13/08/2021 we
repudiate the insurance claim for breach of the following conditions of the Brokers
Indemnity Policy: Clause 12 of the General Conditions: “The valuation of the electronic
securities, securities, commodities, derivatives and foreign currencies for the loss of
which a claim shall be made shall be determined by their closing market value on the date
of discovery of the loss or the loss sustained as a result of auction of share by the MCX.
25) Where the insured is unable to furnish all the particulars required by the surveyor or
where the surveyor does not receive the full cooperation of the insured, the insurer or the
surveyor as the case may be, shall inform in writing the insured about the delay that may
result in the assessment of the claim. The surveyor shall be subjected to the code of
conduct laid down by the Authority while assessing the loss, and shall communicate his
findings to the insurer within 30 days of his appointment with a copy of the report being
furnished to the insured, if he so desires. Where, in special circumstances of the case,
either due to its special and complicated nature, the surveyor shall under intimation to the
insured, seek an extension from the insurer for submission of his report. In no case shall a
surveyor take more than six months from the date of his appointment to furnish his
report34.
26) In the present case, all such rules stated under the IRDAI Regulations were being
followed up. The report submitted by the Surveyors were proper after being enquiring.
27) If an insurer, on the receipt of a survey report, finds that it is incomplete in any respect, he
shall require the surveyor under intimation to the insured, to furnish an additional report
on certain specific issues as may be required by the insurer. Such a request may be made
by the insurer within 15 days of the receipt of the original survey report35.
28) Upon acceptance of an offer of settlement as stated in sub-regulation (5) by the insured,
the payment of the amount due shall be made within 7 days from the date of acceptance
of the offer by the insured. In the cases of delay in the payment, the insurer shall be liable
to pay interest at a rate which is 2% above the bank rate prevalent at the beginning of the
financial year in which the claim is reviewed by it36.
29) IRDAI has put forth many measures to protect the policyholders’ interests. Insurers have
been told to strengthen their grievance redress procedures, consumer complaint resolving
34
United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal 2004(8)SCC 644.
35
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Sony Cheriyan reported in (1999) 6 SCC 451
36
Kamlesh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd, [Civil Appeal No. 8796 of 2019]

10
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 procedures where they are found weak. An important step taken by IRDAI is that it has
made it compulsory that each company forms a Policyholder Protection Committee in the
Board of Directors. This is part of the Corporate Governance guidelines issued by IRDA
and will have the effect of ensuring that insurers’ internal systems are monitored
effectively at the highest level of the company, that is, the Board37.
30) In the present case, the ABGL has given importance to the policy holder. Policyholder’s
protection committee is responsible for overseeing the interest of policyholders of the
company. The general agenda items include review of customer complaints, unclaimed
policy deposit and claim performance of the company.
31) IRDAI has always looked out for insurance policyholder’s interest as evidenced by
IRDAI (Protection of Policy Holders’ Interests) Regulations 2002. With changes in the
products offered, especially in the life segment, IRDAI has come out with a new set of
regulations to protect the interest of the policyholder, with effect from January 2014.
These new regulations are seen as a move towards making life insurance policies more
transparent and efficient38. These regulations have improved the policyholder’s benefits,
reduce complaints of wrong selling and bring transparency and clarity to a field where
misconceptions and lack of awareness still exist. Hence The Hon'ble National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission through a final judgement and order dated 31/12/2022
cannot allow the complaint by rejecting each of the grounds of challenge by ABGL
submitted in its Reply to the complaint and should not held ABGL liable for violating the
applicable IRDAI Regulations on Policyholder’s Interests and on Surveyors.

37
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. PEARL BEVERAGES LTD.. CIVIL
APPEAL NO. OF 2021

38
Oriental Insurance Company Limited v/s Mahendra Construction, Civil Appeal No. 3359 of 2019

11
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 3. THE JUDGEMENT OF HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE
REDRESSAL COMMISSION IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE

32) It is held that the judgement of Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute redressal commission
is noy justifiable. The impugned judgment of the NCDRC has incorrectly analysed the
basis by the insurer for the appointment of surveyors for the purpose of inspection and
assessment. The record to which we have adverted to earlier would indicate that
immediately upon receipt of an intimation of the incident, the insurer initially appointed a
surveyor to submit a preliminary survey report. The inspection was carried out on 19
April 2005 close on the heels of the incident.
33) The report of the preliminary surveyor found serious anomalies in the claim of the insured
in regard to the genesis of the incident. It was on the suggestion of the surveyor that the
appellant obtained an opinion from a structural expert from the Department of Civil
Engineering, Andhra University College of Engineering. The insurer thereafter proceeded
to obtain the opinion of an investigator on 8 December 2006, and eventually, a final
survey report was submitted on 29 June 2007. The purpose of the final survey was to
determine, on the basis of the material which had emerged during the course of an
inspection the cause of the incident, and to assess the extent of damage and loss. In Sri
Venkateswara Syndicate v Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another 39, the
issue before this Court was whether the insurer can appoint successive surveyors for
getting the loss and damage assessed before settling the claim of the insured.
34) The two judge Bench while explaining the purpose of a report of the surveyor observed
thus: “The assessment of loss, claim settlement and relevance of survey report depends on
various factors. Whenever a loss is reported by the insured, a loss adjuster, popularly
known as loss surveyor, is deputed who assesses the loss and issues report known as
surveyor report which forms the basis for consideration or otherwise of the claim.
Surveyors are appointed under the statutory provisions and they are the link between the
insurer and the insured when the question of settlement of loss or damage arises. The
report of the surveyor could become the basis for settlement of a claim by the insurer in
respect of the loss suffered by the insured.” This Court held that the report of a surveyor
must be given due importance and that there should be sufficient grounds for explaining a

39
Sri Venkateswara Syndicate v Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another, (2009) 8 SCC 507

12
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 disagreement with an assessment made by a report of the surveyor. Yet at the same time,
under Section 64-UM(2) of the Insurance Act 1938, it is not open to the insurer to merely
appoint a succession of surveyors with a view to obtain a tailor-made report. It is open to
the insurer to appoint another surveyor for valid reasons bearing on the deficiencies found
in the survey report and the reasons which must be indicated by the insurer.
35) Likewise in the present case, no such clear or justifiable judgement was being pronounced
by the National Consumer dispute commission, as they have not mentioned about which
provision of IRDAI regulation is being violated.
36) There is no prohibition in the Insurance Act for appointment of second surveyor by the
insurance company, but while doing so, the insurance company has to give satisfactory
reasons for not accepting the report of the first surveyor and the need to appoint second
surveyor40.
37) the NCDRC has come to the conclusion that (i) the report of the surveyor was submitted
nearly one and half years after the incident; and (ii) the second survey report was
submitted beyond a period of two years. This according to the NCDRC was in breach of
the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (Protection of
Policyholders’ Interests) Regulations 2002, more particularly, Regulation 9, which
prescribes a period of thirty days for completion of the survey. Relying on the report of
the Inspector of the Factories Department, the NCDRC awarded the respondent’s claim in
the amount of Rs 29,23,503 together with interest. In assailing the judgment of the
NCDRC, Mr K K Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted
that there was a fundamental misconception on the part of the NCDRC in coming to its
conclusion.
38) Therefore, in the instant case also, the order of Consumer court is not justifiable. The
Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission through a final judgement
and order dated 31/12/2022 allowed the complaint by rejecting each of the grounds of
challenge by ABGL submitted in its Reply to the complaint and held ABGL liable for
violating the applicable IRDAI Regulations on Policyholder’s Interests and on Surveyors.
Here the NCDC has not mentioned about the provision of violation, or its ground.

40
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Sri Buchiyyamma Rice Mil, Civil Appeal No 504 of 2020 Arising out
of SLP(C) No 15430 of 2019

13
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 PRAYER

In the lights of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most
humbly submitted that the court may please adjudge and declare that:

1. The Appeal filed before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is maintainable.

2. ABGL cannot be held liable for violating the applicable IRDAI regulations on
policyholder’s Interests and on Surveyors.
3. The judgement of Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission is not
justifiable.
And the court may pass any other order, writ or directions that deems fit in the
interest of justice, equity and good faith.

Place:

Date:

Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Appellant

SD/-

14
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT