/2023 INSC 0538/
/2023 INSC 0437/
NON­REPORTABLE
     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
    CIVIL APPEAL NO.3673 OF 2015
   
M/s Super Label Mfg. Co.                 .…Appellant(s)
Versus
New India Assurance Company Limited….  Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
A.S. Bopanna, J.
                
1. The   appellant   is   a   registered   partnership   firm
engaged   in   the   business   of   printing   high   technology
labels   used   as   adhesive   labels   mainly   by   Drug
Manufacturers   and   Other   Companies   on   their   packing
material.   In   order   to   carry   on   such   business,   the
appellant   had   imported   highly   sophisticated   and   costly
machinery and had installed the same in their premises.
1

Among   the   said   machinery   that   was   installed,   it   also
included the ‘Aquaflex’ brand of machinery from  Canada
and   ‘Gallus­Arsoma’   from   Switzerland,   which   are
sophisticated   printing   machinery.   In   order   to   insure   the
said   machinery   against   any   damage   and   loss,   the
appellant had secured a ‘Standard Fire and Special Perils’
Policy from the respondent insurance company. The said
policy  was for  a total cover  of Rs. 3,35,30,000/­ (Rupees
Three   Crores   Thirty­Five   Lakhs   Thirty   Thousand   only)
and was valid for the period 15.05.2003 to 30.08.2004. 
2. When this was the position, as per the case of the
appellant,   there   was   a   fire   mishap   in   the   factory   on
28.02.2004 at about 7.50 AM. The fire had damaged and
destroyed   certain   portions  of  the   factory   which   included
the   plant   and   machinery,   building,   raw   material   and
finished   products.   The   appellant,   therefore,   invoked   the
policy   and   filed   a   claim   with   the   respondent   insurance
company   for   a   sum   of   Rs.3,02,75,000/­   (Rupees   Three
Crores   Two   Lakh   Seventy­Five   Thousand   only).   The
appellant   had   also   informed   M/s   Loss   Prevention
2

Association   of   India   Ltd.   and   requested   them   to
undertake an investigation. 
3. As   per   procedure   the   insurance   company
appointed   a   surveyor,   M/s   Prabha   Associates,   Mumbai
to   assess   the   loss.   The   said   surveyors   were   required   to
submit a report in not more than six months as per the
regulations   under   the   Insurance   Regulatory   and
Development   Authority.     The   surveyor   conducted   the
inspection   of   the   premises   several   times   and,   at   the
instance of the surveyor, the appellant also called for an
Engineer   from   the   manufacturers   in   Switzerland   to
physically inspect the machine and to tender his opinion.
In   this  regard,  the   appellant   had  also   to   incur  expenses
of   about   Rs.4,86,665/­   (Rupees   Four   Lakh   Eighty­Six
Thousand   Six   Hundred   Sixty­Five   only).   The   appellant
contends,   though   the   surveyor   admitted   the   loss   to   the
tune of Rs.1,81,35,810/­ (Rupees One Crore Eighty­One
Lakhs   Thirty­Five   Thousand   Eight   Hundred   Ten   only)
and the assessment of loss was enhanced further  based
on   the   letter   dated   13.09.2004   and   07.10.2004,   on
3

submission   of   the   report   the   respondents   limited   the
reimbursement   to   Rs.16,15,606/­   (Rupees   Sixteen   Lakh
Fifteen Thousand Six Hundred and Six Only) by sending
a   voucher   dated   16.05.2005.   The   appellant   declined   to
accept the same and instead, filed a consumer complaint
before   the   National   Consumer   Disputes   Redressal
Commission   (for   short,   ‘NCDRC’)   claiming   a   sum   of
Rs.5,20,91,724/­   (Rupees   Five   Crores   Twenty   Lakhs
Ninety­One Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty­Four only)
including   the   amount   of   Rs.2,26,61,376/­   (Rupees   Two
Crores   Twenty­Six   Lakhs   Sixty­One   Thousand   Three
Hundred   Seventy­Six   only)   which   was   the   amount
assessed as a loss by  the surveyor  and also the interest
payable to the various banks. 
4. The   respondents   filed   their   written   statement
disputing the claim put forth by the appellant. According
to   the   respondent,   the   amount   of   Rs.16,15,606/­
(Rupees   Sixteen   Lakhs   Fifteen   Thousand   Six   Hundred
and   Six   only)   offered   by   them   was   as   assessed   by   the
surveyor,   and   as   such   the   same   would   be   the   full   and
4

final settlement of the claim by the appellant. It is alleged
by the respondent that the appellant had not cooperated
with   the   surveyors   at   the   time   of   the   assessment   being
made   by   the   surveyor.   It   is   their   case   that   in   respect   of
the   imported   machines,   the   local   representative   of   the
manufacturers   were   unable   to   technically   prove   the
damage   to   the   machinery   since   they   had   no   technical
expertise   or   knowledge   to   attend   to   the   same.   The
engineer of M/s Gallus who visited from abroad declared
the machine to be a total loss based on the photographs
and   had not stated categorically that the machine could
not   be   repaired.   The   respondents   contended   that   the
Engineer   could   not   explain   as   to   how   the   damage   had
occurred   due   to   fire.   In   effect,   the   respondents   had
disputed   the   reports   tendered   by   the   experts   but   had
sought to rely on the report of the surveyor appointed by
them and that of M/s. Material Technology Development
Centre (for short, ‘MTDC’). In that context, they sought to
justify   the   amount   of   Rs.16,19,209/­   (Rupees   Sixteen
Lakhs   Nineteen   Thousand   Two   Hundred   and   Nine   only)
5

offered by them. Insofar as the claim and the assessment
of   loss   to   the   extent   of   Rs.2,26,61,376/­   (Rupees   Two
Crore   Twenty­Six   Lakhs   Sixty­One   Thousand   Three
Hundred   and   Seventy­Six   only)   it   was   contended   that   it
is unsubstantiated. 
5. In   the  background   of   the   contentions,   the   NCDRC
has   taken   into   consideration   the   surveyor’s   report   and
based on the same has considered the aspect relating to
the heavy rusting of the machinery and concentrated on
as   to   whether   the   rusting   within   4   to   5   hours   is
technically   feasible.   In   this   regard,   the   NCDRC   has
referred   to   the   opinion   in   the   website   ‘Wikipedia’   with
regard  to  corrosion,  as  explained  therein  and   has  based
its decision on the same to arrive at the conclusion that
the   rusting   to   the   machinery   had   taken   place   over   a
number of years and not due to one incident of fire and
the   water   sprayed   for   its   extinguishment.   In   that   view,
the   NCDRC   has   not   given   credence   to   the   contention   of
the  appellant  that  the surveyor  had earlier  assessed the
loss at Rs.2,26,61,376/­ (Rupees Two Crores Twenty­Six
6

Lakhs   Sixty­One   Thousand   Three   Hundred   Seventy­Six
only)   but   on   the   other   hand   accepted   the   contention   of
the respondents that the appellant is entitled to the sum
of   Rs.16,19,209/­   (Rupees   Sixteen   Lakhs   Nineteen
Thousand   Two   Hundred   and   Nine   only)   as   offered   by
them.   The NCDRC, therefore, disposed of the complaint
through   its   order   dated  24.02.2015   limiting   the  relief  to
the   said   sum   of   Rs.16,19,209/­   (Rupees   Sixteen   Lakhs
Nineteen   Thousand   Two   Hundred   and   Nine   only)   with
interest   at   12   per   cent   per   annum.   The   appellant
therefore claiming to be aggrieved is before this Court in
this appeal. 
6. We   have   elaborately   heard   Mr.   Arunabh
Chowdhury,   learned   senior   advocate   for   the   appellant
and   Mr.   S.L.   Gupta,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent
and perused the appeal papers including the order dated
24.02.2015   passed   by   the   NCDRC   which   is   impugned
herein. 
7. At the outset, it is necessary to note that insofar as
the   respondent   having   issued   the   ‘Standard   Fire   and
7

Special   Perils’   Policy   which   was   valid   for   the   period
15.05.2003   to   30.08.2004   covering   the   damages   up   to
Rs.   3,35,30,000/­   (Rupees   Three   Crores   Thirty­Five
Lakhs   Thirty   Thousand   only)   is   the   accepted   position.
The   fact   that   during   the   validity   of   the   policy,   a   fire
accident had occurred on 28.02.2004 is also undisputed.
The   fire   being   the   cause   for   having   resulted   in   certain
loss which is covered under the policy for reimbursement
also   cannot   be   disputed.   The   very   fact   that   the
respondents   have   quantified   the   loss   and   offered   to   pay
the   sum   of   Rs.16,19,209/­   (Rupees   Sixteen   Lakhs
Nineteen   Thousand   Two   Hundred   and   Nine   only)   which
according to them was the loss/damage to the plant and
machinery   and   other   articles   would   indicate   that   the
only   issue   which   was   to   be   determined   by   the   NCDRC
and   now   by   this   Court   is   with   regard   to   the   extent   of
damage   caused   and   the   amount   of   compensation
therefore,   to   be   paid   and   reimbursed   by   the   respondent
insurance company under the policy, within the amount
of coverage provided therein. 
8

8. The   report   dated   28.03.2005   of   M/s   Prabha
Associates,   the   surveyor   appointed   by   the   respondent
insurance   company   shows   that   on   the   visit   made   on
28.02.2004,  it  records  that   the  fire  brigade  vehicles  had
arrived at 8.15 A.M. and had doused the fire using water
jets   till   10.30   A.M.   In   this   regard,   it   also   records   that
water   was   sprayed   all   over   the   place   which   caused
damage   to   the   machineries,   than   the   damage   that   was
caused by the fire itself. The observation recorded by the
surveyor   is   that   the   ‘Aquaflex’   printing   press   located
below the cables was found affected. Further the ‘Gallus’
Printing   Machine,   ‘Spengler’   machine   and   A.V.   Flexo
plate   counter   were   all   water   affected.   It   was   also
observed  in  the   report  that   the  water   marks were  found
on   all   the   machines   and   metal   rollers   on   ‘Gallus’   and
‘Aquaflex’   machine   which   was   rusted   due   to   the   water
being   sprayed.   In   the   report,   it   was   also   indicated   that
the   probable   cause   of   fire   is   short   circuit   and   it   was
extinguished by the fire brigade by spraying water on all
the machines located in the premises. It is observed that,
9

when   they   visited   the   premises,   all   the   iron   parts   were
rusted   to   varying   degrees   with   regard   to   the   ‘Gallus’
machine   and   that   there   was   water   on   mechanical   and
electric   parts   located   on   the   operations   side   of   the
machine. The rear side of the machine was found intact.
It   was   therefore   concluded   that   the   rusting   was   due   to
the water being sprayed. 
9. As   regards   ‘Aquaflex’   machine,   it   was   indicated
that the machine was located very close to the source of
fire   and   it   was   found   that   the   plastic   knobs   had   partly
melted;   the   electrical   wirings   had   burnt   and   the   main
control panel was void of water marks. Pursuant to such
report there was an exchange of correspondence between
the   appellant   and   the   surveyor   wherein   further   details
were   furnished   relating   to   effort   made   by   the   appellant
towards   the   restoration   of   the   machinery   and   M/s
Graphic   Technology   Inc.   having   informed   the   appellant
through   the   communication   dated   17.04.2004   that   the
cost of repairing  the machine will exceed the reasonable
limit and may not be able to guarantee optimum printing
10

quality   in   spite   of   repairs   as   the   metal   deformation   on
the   main   frame   cannot   be   reverted.   The   very   opening   of
the   machine   requiring   additional   parts   was   also
highlighted.   It   is   in   that   background,   having   taken   note
of   this   aspect   of   the   matter   the   surveyor   who   had   on
06.09.2004   made   an   assessment   of   Rs.1,81,35,810/­
(Rupees   One   Crores   Eighty­One   Lakhs   Thirty­Five
Thousand   Eight   Hundred   Ten   only)   and   had   sent   for
acceptance of the insured, namely the appellant so as to
finalise   the   report,   on   further   exchange   of
correspondence, the assessment of damage was revised. 
10. The   respondent,   in   that   background,   also   sought
for a report from the Loss Prevention Association of India
Ltd.,   which   on   examination   by   visiting   the   site   on
12.03.2004   along   with   the   Divisional   Manager   and
Development   Officer,   apart   from   suggesting   remedial
measures had noted with regard to considering the bill of
damage   to   the   electric   cables   etc.   It   was   noted   that   two
printing   machines   were   found   partly   damaged   due   to
heat, smoke and fire fighting water. But, observation was
11

however   made   that   heavy   rusting   was   technically   not
feasible   within   the   time   span   of   4   to   5   hours   under
conditions of fire and its extinguishment. The respondent
therefore   taking   into   consideration   the   said   reports   had
limited   the   reimbursement   to   the   extent   as   indicated
above. 
11. While taking note of this aspect, what is also to be
kept   in   view   is   the   report   submitted   by   M/s
Gallus/Heidelberg   India   Pvt.   Ltd.   pursuant   to   the   visit
made   on   29.02.2004   within   a   few   hours   of   the   fire
accident. The said report indicated that the machine was
total   loss   and   not   repairable   with   reasonable   costs.
Subsequently   the   Engineer   who   flew   from   Switzerland
also   visited   the   site   on   05.10.2004.   As   per   the   report
dated 06.10.2004, the machine was extensively damaged
as a result of fire and could neither be switched on, nor
be   overhauled/repaired   at   the   site.   He   was   also   of   the
opinion that the machine would have to be dismantled in
order   to   inspect   the   damage   and   if   any   replacement   is
required   it   would   be   highly   expensive.   The   said   report
12

was no doubt available before the surveyor and surveyor
had   raised   certain   queries   with   regard   to   the   print
precision and as to why the repairs cannot be carried out
in   India.   M/s   Heidelberg   India   Pvt.   Ltd.   submitted   its
reply   on   05.01.2005   indicating   that   the   premises   was
gutted by fire and the medium used to extinguish the fire
was   water.   As   such   heavy   film   of   rust   had   formed   over
the   heated   steel   component   like   plate   and   impression
cylinders,   activation   mechanism,   machine   sliding
surfaces,   bearings   at   various   locations   throughout   the
length   and   breadth   of   the   press.   It   was   indicated   in
technical   terms   with   regard   to   the   machine   not   being
rectifiable.
12. As   noted   earlier,   the   respondent   had   also   secured
reports   from   MTDC   subsequent   to   the   report   of   M/s
Heidelberg.   MTDC   vide   its   report   dated   06.01.2005
observed   that   heavy   rusting   is   not   technically   feasible
within the time span of 4 to 5 hours under conditions of
fire and its extinguishment. It was indicated, technically
they   could   not   confirm   significant   amount   of   rusting
13

within   4   to   5   hours   because   of   fire   and   its
extinguishment as valid. 
13. The   appellant   on   the   other   hand   sought   the
assistance   of   Indian   Institute   of   Technology,   Powai   to
secure  a  report  in   the  background  of   the  existing  report
including that of MTDC. The IIT, Powai through its report
dated   12.08.2006   observed   that   the   simulation   of   the
conditions   to   test   the   feasibility   of   rusting   within   4   to   5
hours   was   not   proper   and   cannot   be   considered   as
reliable.   The   report   of   MTDC   suggesting   that   rusting
existed   prior   to   break   out   of   fire   was   commented   upon
and was indicated that it was misinterpretation on their
own   observations.     The   Indian   Institute   of   Technology
(IIT),   Powai   in   their   report   had   also   indicated   that   the
seven conditions necessary for rusting and corrosion did
in   fact  exist.   In   that   light,   the   report   suggested   that  the
rusting and corrosion of machine occurred on account of
the   fire   accident.   It   was   suggested   that   the   surveyors
report is not scientific and that it is inconclusive. 
14

14. Having   noted   the   various   reports   that   had   been
secured   at   various   stages,   insofar   as   the   fact   that   the
assessment by a surveyor is a requirement to arrive at a
conclusion   to   assess   the   loss   is   the   accepted   position.
However, as against the report of the surveyor appointed
by the insurance company  if there is any  other material
on   record,   the   same   cannot   be   ignored   but   is   also
required   to   be   noted   for   the   purpose   of   settlement   of
claim.   In   this   regard,   learned   senior   counsel   for   the
appellant   has   relied   on   the   decision   of   this   Court   in
National   Insurance   Company   Ltd.   Vs.   Hareshwar
Enterprises  (P) Ltd.  and Others   (2021) SCC  Online SC
628 wherein,  inter alia  it is observed as hereunder:­
“12.   In   the   said   decision,   it   is   no   doubt   held   that
though   the   assessment   of   loss   by   an   approved
surveyor   is   a   prerequisite   for   payment   or   settlement
of   the   claim,   the   surveyor   report   is   not   the   last   and
final word. It is not that sacrosanct that it cannot be
departed from and it is not conclusive. The approved
surveyor's   report   may   be   the   basis  or   foundation   for
settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of loss
suffered   by   insured   but   such   report   is   neither
binding   upon   the   insurer   nor   insured.   On   the   said
proposition,   we   are   certain   that   there   can   be   no
quarrel. The surveyor's report certainly can be taken
note   as   a   piece   of   evidence   until   more   reliable
evidence   is   brought   on   record   to   rebut   the   contents
of the surveyor's report.”
15

15. In   that   background,   in   the   instant   facts   where   no
oral   evidence   has   been   tendered   by   the   parties   and
ultimately   the   consideration   is   based   on   the   reports
which   are   available   on   record,   the   nature   of   the   reports
and the manner in which the fire accident had occurred
and   the   situation   leading   to   the   claim   is   to   be   assessed
in   an   objective   manner   by   the   adjudicatory   forum.   In
order   to   buttress   his   contentions   in   this   regard,   the
learned senior counsel has referred to the decision in the
case   of   New   India   Assurance   Company   Limited   Vs.
Zuari Industries Limited and Others   (2009) 9 SCC 70
wherein this Court having referred to the earlier decision
has arrived at the conclusion that the chain of events is
to   be   taken   note   while   considering   the   claim   for
damages.   In   this   regard,   it   is   stated   therein   as
hereunder:­
“14.   Apparently   there   is   no   direct   decision   of   this
Court   on   this   point   as   to   the   meaning   of   proximate
cause, but  there  are  decisions of foreign courts,  and
the   predominant   view   appears   to   be   that   the
proximate cause is not the cause which is nearest in
time   or   place   but   the   active   and   efficient   cause   that
sets in motion a train or chain of events which brings
about the ultimate result without the intervention of
any other force working from an independent source.
16

16. Thus,   in   Lynn  Gas   and  Electric  Co.   v.   Meriden
Fire   Insurance   Co.   the   Supreme   Court   of
Massachusetts   was   concerned   with   a   case   where   a
fire   occurred   in   the   wire   tower   of   the   plaintiff's
building, through which the wires of electric lighting
were carried from the building. The fire was speedily
extinguished, without contact with other parts of the
building and contents, and with slight damage to the
tower   or   its   contents.   However,   in   a   part   of   the
building remote from the fire and untouched thereby,
there occurred a disruption by centrifugal force of the
flywheel   of   the   engine   and   their   pulleys   connected
therewith,   and   by   this   disruption   the   plaintiff's
building   and   machinery   were   damaged   to   a   large
extent.
17. It   was   held   in   Lynn   Gas   and   Electric   Co.   that
the   proximate   cause   was   not   the   cause   nearest   in
time or place, and it may operate through successive
instruments, as an article at the end of a chain may
be   moved   by   a   force   applied   to   the   other   end.   The
question   always   is:   was   there   an   unbroken
connection  between  the  wrongful  act   and the  injury,
a continuous operation? In other words, did the facts
constitute   a   continuous   succession   of   events,   so
linked together as to make a natural whole, or there
was   some   new   and   independent   cause   intervening
between the wrong and the injury?
22.   In the present case, it is evident from the chain of
events that the fire was the efficient and active cause
of the damage. Had the fire not occurred, the damage
also   would   not   have   occurred   and   there   was   no
intervening agency which was an independent source
of   the   damage.   Hence   we   cannot   agree   with   the
conclusion of the surveyors that the fire was not the
cause   of   the   damage   to   the   machinery   of   the
claimant.   Moreover,   in   General   Assurance   Society
Ltd.   v.   Chandmull   Jain     it   was   observed   by   a
Constitution   Bench   of   this   Court   that   in   case   of
ambiguity   in   a   contract   of   insurance   the   ambiguity
should   be   resolved   in   favour   of   the   claimant   and
against the insurance company.”
17

16. In the above backdrop, in the instant case we note
that   the   entire   consideration   made   by   the   respondent
before   admitting   only   a   portion   of   the   claim   and   the
ultimate   consideration   made   by   the   NCDRC   appears   to
be   on   the   narrow   issue   with   regard   to   the   corrosion   of
the   machinery   and   in   that   regard   as   to   whether   the
corrosion   can   happen   within   a   short   duration   of   4   to   5
hours. In our opinion, such consideration in the instant
facts   was   misdirected   and   therefore   resulted   in   the
wrong conclusion. 
17. We   note   that   in   the   case   on   hand,   the   policy   in
question   is   a   ‘Standard   Fire   and   Special   Perils’   Policy
which   is   available   at   Annexures   P­2   to   P­5.   The   policy
includes   the   coverage   in   respect   of   destruction   or
damage due to fire, save the exceptions provided therein.
The   fact   that   in   the   instant   case   the   fire   accident   had
occurred   during   the   subsistence   of   the   policy   and   that
such accident was accidental and had caused damage to
the property of the appellants including to the machinery
in question is not in dispute. The photographs relating to
18

the   machines   along   with   report   of   the   surveyor   would
indicate that there is rusting on the machinery. The fact
that the said machinery is highly sophisticated imported
machinery   for   precision   printing   cannot   be   disputed.   In
such situation, when, due to such accidental fire and to
extinguish   such   fire   the   assistance   of   the   fire   brigade
was called for and even as per the report of the surveyor
the   fire   brigade   had   sprayed   water   and   such   other   fire
extinguishing   material   over   the   machinery   which   was
placed in the room which caught fire and the fire brigade
has   made   effort   between   8.15   am   to   10.30   am,   the
damage to the machinery has occurred. From the report
of   the   experts   it   is   indicated   that   the   machinery   was
beyond   repair   keeping   in   view   the   precision   work   to   be
performed   with   the   said   machinery   and   there   was   no
guarantee   that   even   if   an   attempt   is   made   to   repair   the
same   after   opening   the   machine,   it   would   give   good
results. 
18. Per   contra   the   fact   remains   that   the   respondent
has not tendered any evidence to indicate that the same
19

machinery   in   fact   is   being   used   by   the   appellants
subsequent   to   the   fire   accident   either   in   the   same
manner   in   which   it   was   being   used   prior   to   the   fire
accident   or   being   used   after   repairs.   Further   except   for
the   MTDC   assuming   that   the   corrosion   has   happened
over   a   period   of   time,   all   other   reports   suggest   that   the
corrosion   has   happened   due   to   the   spraying   of   water   to
extinguish   the   fire.   The   fact   that   the   appellant   was   a
going concern as on the date of the fire accident is not in
dispute. Further, the surveyors report in any event does
not   suggest   that   the   machineries   were   not   in   use   as   on
the relevant date. On the other hand, the appellants had
contended that the very same machines were being used
for   printing   the   labels   immediately   prior   to   the   fire
accident   and  there   was   no   complaint   with   regard   to  the
quality   of   printed   labels   from   its   customers.   The
respondents   have   not   placed   any   contrary   material   to
controvert the said position. In such situation, we are of
the   opinion   that   the   emphasis   in   a   fact   of   the   present
nature   to   arrive   at   the   conclusion   as   to   whether   the
20

corrosion   could   happen   within   a   time   period   of   4   to   5
hours   and   in   that   regard,   the   NCDRC   considering   that
aspect   based   only   on   the   definition   of   corrosion   in
general terms is not justified. 
19. In the overall assessment of the instant case, when
the accidental fire on 28.02.2004 is the accepted position
and  in the very  report of the surveyor  dated 28.03.2005
recording   the   nature   of   the   damage   to   the   machinery   is
also   the   accepted   position,   a   narrow   construction   as
made by the NCDRC is unacceptable. On the other hand,
the   chain   of   events   will   lead   to   the   conclusion   the   fire
accident has caused the damage. 
20. If   that   be   the   position,   the   issue   would   be   with
regard to the extent to which the claim of the appellant is
required   to   be   accepted   and   the   respondent   be   directed
to reimburse the same. In this regard, though the claim
is made by the appellant for the sum of Rs.5,20,91,724/­
(Rupees Five Crores Twenty Lakhs Ninety­One Thousand
Seven   Hundred   Twenty­Four   only),   the   learned   senior
counsel   for   the   appellant   would   indicate   that   the
21

appellant   would   presently   limit   the   claim   to
Rs.2,26,61,376/­   (Rupees   Two   Crores   Twenty­Six   Lakhs
Sixty­One   Thousand   Three   Hundred   Seventy­Six   only).
In that background, if the nature of assessment made by
the   surveyor   at   the   first   instance   is   taken   into
consideration,   the   amount   indicated   therein   was   in   a
sum of Rs.1,81,35,810/­ (Rupees One Crores Eighty­One
Lakhs   Thirty­Five   Thousand   Eight   Hundred   Ten   only).
However   on   the   exchange   of   correspondence   between
surveyor   and   the   appellant   who   brought   on   record
additional   material   before   the   surveyor   to   indicate   that
the machinery cannot be repaired, the amount assessed
was   Rs.2,32,02,000/­   (Rupees   Two   Crores   Thirty   Two
Lakhs Two Thousand only). 
21. Therefore,   if   all   these   aspects   are   taken   into
consideration,   the   claim   limited   by   the   appellant   at   this
juncture is the actual loss suffered by the appellant. We
are   therefore   of   the  opinion   that  the   appellant   would  be
entitled  to  the amount  of Rs.2,26,61,376/­ (Rupees Two
Crores   Twenty­Six   Lakhs   Sixty­One   Thousand   Three
22

Hundred   Seventy­Six   only)   minus   the   sum   of
Rs.16,19,209/­   (Rupees   Sixteen   Lakhs   Nineteen
Thousand Two Hundred and Nine only) which was earlier
offered   by   the   Insurance   Company   and   was   received
without   prejudice   during   the   pendency   of   the
proceedings, with  interest if any  that  has been  received.
The   balance   amount   of   Rs.   2,10,42,167/­   (Rupees   Two
Crores   Ten   Lakhs   Forty­Two   Thousand   One   Hundred
Sixty­Seven   only)   shall   be   payable   by   the   respondent
with   interest   at   6   per   cent   per   annum   from   the   date   of
the complaint filed before the NCDRC. The same shall be
paid within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment.
22. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part.
23. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
…………….…………….J.
(A.S. BOPANNA)
        ….……………………….J.
                                            (DIPANKAR DATTA)
New Delhi;
May 16, 2023
23