SUPREME COURT: PETITIONER MUST BE PRESENT AT THE TIME OF FILING PLEA

The Supreme Court has ruled that the election petitioner must be personally present at the time of filing the petition under section 81(1) of the Representation of the People’s Act in the High Court.

A bench comprising Justices DK Jain and P Sathasivan while dismissing the petition of a defeated candidate in the Assembly Elections in Karnataka which were held on May 10, 2008 noted, “In such circumstances it is but proper to interpret the language used by the legislature and implement the same accordingly.

“The challenge to an election is a serious matter. The object of presenting an election petition by a candidate or elector is to ensure genuineness and to curtail vexatious litigations.

“In view of the endorsement by the Registrar (Judicial) on July 7, 2008 that the election petition was presented only by an advocate and not by the election petitioner, we accept the High Court order in dismissing the election petition." Justice Sathasivam, speaking for the bench in a 16-page judgment, added, " we further hold that as per sub-section 1 of section 81, election petition is to be presented by any candidate or elector relating to the election personally to the authorised officer of the High Court and failure to adhere to such course would by contrary to the set provision and in that event the election petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of improper presentation.

“Since the High Court correctly dismissed the election petition, the civil appeal fails and the same is dismissed." The petitioner GV Sreerama Reddy was the CPM candidate and petitioner number two was his election agent and the petition was filed thorough an advocate. The petitioners were not personally present at the time of filing of the petition.

The main allegation of Reddy was that he was declared elected by the Returning Officer and when he left the place an application for recounting was moved by the Congress candidate, who was subsequently declared elected from constituency number 140, Bagepalli in Karnataka.

SUPREME COURT: INSURERS CAN’T REJECT SURVEYOR REPORT WITHOUT VALID REASON

The Supreme Court categorically held in the case of Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. that to assess the damage claim, the insurance companies cannot appoint surveyor after surveyor to get a tailor-made report. If the report of the damage surveyor is not acceptable, the insurance companies have to give valid reason(s) for rejecting such a report, said apex court.

A Bench Comprising Justice Markenday Katju and Justice H L Dattu held that 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 assess 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. There is no disputing the fact that the Surveyor/Surveyors are appointed by the insurance company under the provisions of Insurance Act and their reports are to be given due importance and one should have sufficient grounds not to agree with the assessment made by them. We also add, that, under this Section the insurance company cannot go on appointing Surveyors one after another so as to get a tailor made report to the satisfaction of the concerned officer of the insurance company, if for any reason, the report of the Surveyors is not acceptable, the insurer has to give valid reason for not accepting the report.

The court said, scheme of section 64-UM of the Insurance Act, 1938 particularly its sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) would show that the insurer cannot appoint a second surveyor just as a routine matter. If for any valid reason the report of the surveyor is not acceptable to the insure, it must specify cogent reasons, without which it is not free to appoint second surveyor or surveyors till it gets a report which would satisfy its interest. Alternatively, it can be stated that there must be sufficient ground to disagree with the findings of surveyor / surveyors. There is no prohibition in the Insurance Act for appointment of second surveyor by the insurance company, but while doing so, they has to give satisfactory reasons for not accepting the report of the first surveyor and the need to appoint second surveyor, the court said.

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. Surveyor/surveyors are appointed by the insurance company under the provisions of Insurance Act and their reports are to be given due importance and one should have sufficient grounds not to agree with the assessment made by them, the court pointed out.

The Oriental Insurance Company to assess the damage of a claimant had appointed a licensed surveyor for preliminary investigation. After receipt of the preliminary report, it had appointed Joint Surveyors in terms of Section 64 UM(2) of the Insurance Act. The insurer was of the view that the report was perfunctory. It then appointed yet another surveyor who in turn had appointed the former DIG (Fire) CISF and Fire Adviser to the government of India to investigate and submit a report,who in turn after investigation and survey submitted his report confirming the quantification made by the Joint Surveyor.