 Ravi Prakash Goel v.

Chandra Prakash Goel (Appeal(Civil) 1526/2007)

The Court observed that, the Allahabad High court’s view that the Appellant not having a binding
arbitration agreement with the respondents is also erroneous in law and facts. The Court in its
judgment pronounced that the Appellant has the right to invoke the arbitration clause in the
Partnership Deed and make an application before the court under Section 11 of the Act for the
appointment of the arbitrator.

 Sri Venkateswara Syndicate v/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Another

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4487 OF 2004

Decided On, 24 August 2009

At, Supreme Court of India

Two issues would arise for our consideration and decision. Firstly, whether the insurance company
can repeatedly appoint Surveyors after Surveyors for getting the loss/damage assessed before
settling the claim of the insured.

The Authority may, at any time, in respect of any claim of the nature referred to in sub-section (2),
call for an independent report from any other approved surveyor or loss assessor specified by him
and such surveyor or loss assessor shall furnish such report to the Authority within such time as may
be specified by the Authority or if no time limit has been specified by him within reasonable time
and the cost of, or incidental to, such report shall be borne by the insurer.

Here there was unnecessary delay by insurance company.

 National Insurance Company Ltd. vs M/s. Hareshwar Enterprises (P) Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 7033 OF 2009

Judges Name: Hon’ble Judges Hemant Gupta J, A.S. Bopanna J.

Order dated: 18.08.2021

“For the settlement of insurance claims the surveyor report is not the final word and is not
conclusive”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court analyzed the concept of “Cause of Action”. The Court observed that a
perusal of the surveyor’s report would indicate that the same is not perfunctory but has referred to
all aspects, discarded what was not reliable and the assessment has been made thereafter.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court analyzed the background of the matter and noted that the fire incident
had occurred on 06.11.1999 and the surveyors had visited the site on 09.01.1999 itself and the
interim as also the final report were submitted on 23.03.2000 and 13.03.2001 to the insurer after
due deliberations. The insurer did not take any steps immediately but after much delay appointed
the investigator on 22.06.2001 and had not concluded the said process though the respondent No.1
had made repeated request. The insured had approached the NCDRC and it is in the said
proceedings, for the first time the insurer seeks to rely on the investigator’s report. Therefore, in the
facts and circumstances herein the surveyors report was submitted as the natural process, the
conclusion reached therein is more plausible and reliable rather than the investigation report
keeping in view the manner in which the insurer had proceeded in the matter. Hence, the reliance
placed on the surveyor’s report by the NCDRC without giving credence to the investigation report in
the facts and circumstances of the instant case cannot be faulted. In that view, the conclusion
reached on this aspect by the NCDRC does not call for interference.