Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Aroprint Global Private Limited. vs The New India Assurance Co.Ltd on 16 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19082
1 WP-36267-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
ON THE 16th OF JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 36267 of 2024
M/S AROPRINT GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED.
Versus
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Amit Agrawal, Sr. Counsel along with Shri Akhil Godha, Advocate for the
petitioner
Shri Sudhir Dandvate - Advocate for the respondents.
Reserved on : 07/07/2026
Pronounced on : 16/07/2026
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:
(i) Decision / communication dated 04/04/2024 communicated by the respondent
no. 2, may kindly be quashed and,
(ii) Direct the respondent Insurance Company to settle the claim at the earliest on the
basis of the available Final Survey Report of the Joint Final Surveyors in accordance
with law.
(iii) Direct the respondent Insurance Company to restrict itself from operating unfair
delay tactics in .petitioners claim and strictly confirm with law.
(iv) Direct the respondent no. 4 to provide the survey reports/
proceedings/documents/e-mails and all information relevant to the petitioners claim;
(v) To allow the cost of this petition with any other appropriate relief(s) may kindly
be granted to the petitioner and,
(vi) To pass any other or further order(s) deemed fit and necessary in the facts and
circumstances of the matter.
(vii) Direct the respondent / Insurance Company to disburse the claim amount to the
petitioner in accordance with the Final Survey Report of the Joint final surveyors as
accepted by them, in terms of the Section 64 UM of the Insurance Act, 1938Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 16-07-2026
18:48:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19082
2 WP-36267-2024
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the respondent /
Insurance Company.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the insurance
company has without jurisdiction, unilaterally and unfairly deputed a fresh
surveyor almost after six months of receipt of the final survey report, which
is an unfair trade practice to unnecessarily delay the claim settlement
process. The said practice is uncalled for and against the IRDAI Regulations,
2017 and Section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1938. He has further
submitted that he insurer has neither rejected nor made out any such cogent
reason for not accepting the available final survey report, if has acted in
contradiction to views of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.
4979 of 2019, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Vedic Resorts and Hotels Pvt.
Lid. Learned counsel has also submitted that he insurer has not
communicated any disagreement with the available final survey report, the
insurer was duty bound to settle the claim within 30 days of receipt of the
final survey report, in compliance to the provision 15 (5) (i) of the IRDAI
Regulations, 2017. This mandatory regulation has been violated. The
Insurance company ought to have settled the claim within 30 days in
accordance with the process setup by the IRDAI under regulation no. 15
under IRDAI Regulations 2017, failing which the regulation 15(10) provides
for payment of interest @2% above the Bank interest rate. Under the
regulatory guidelines of IRDAI (Protection of Policy Holders’ Interests)
Regulations, 2017, provision 15 (6}, the insurer is supposed to examine the
contents of the final survey report and if he finds that it is incomplete in any
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 16-07-2026
18:48:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19082
3 WP-36267-2024
respect, he shall require the same surveyor, under intimation to the insured,
to furnish an additional report on certain specific issues as may be required
by the insurer, within 15 days of the receipt of the final survey report. This
mandate has been violated. Learned counsel has further submitted that o
appoint a fresh surveyor, Section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1938, which
provides for licensing of Surveyors and Loss Assessors, would be attracted,
The Insurance Company ought to have gone to the Regulatory Authority
under the, Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999, and
under Sub-Section (3) it was for the said Authority to call for an independent
report from any other Approved Surveyor or Loss Assessor specified by it.
This process has not been followed. The law has been well crystallized in
case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. M/s. Protection Manufacturers
Pvt. Ltd. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the
appointment of fresh surveyor was much after the salvage goods were
already removed, thereby rendering his deputation and subsequent survey
process infructuous and a mere tactic to delay the claim settlement. The
appointment of New Surveyor by the Insurance Company was fo work as an
appellate surveyor of the Joint Final Surveyors, which is not legal and valid.
In these circumstances, present petition deserves to be allowed.
4. To bolster his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has
also placed reliance upon the judgments delivered in the cases of Sri
Venkateswara Syndicate vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd reported in (2009) 8
SCC 507; Luxra Enterprises Private Limited Vs. New Indian Assurance
Company Limited reported in (2019) 6 SCC 36 and M.P Power Management
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 16-07-2026
18:48:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19082
4 WP-36267-2024
Company Limited, Jabalpur Vs. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Private
Limited and others reported in (2023) 2 SCC 703.
5. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents / Insurance
Company has submitted that the petition is premature, as no final decision
has been taken by the respondents upon the claim of the petitioner. The high
level meeting was conducted by the respondents to consider the claim of the
petitioner. Further investigation and verification of books and other things of
the petitioner were required to be investigated. Mr. Manish Goyal Chartered
Accountant was appointed on 04-04-24, to investigate the books of accounts
(Forensic study of the books of accounts), and the Investigator raised certain
queries to the petitioner. Initially though the petitioner cooperated with the
Investigator, but subsequently making allegations against the Investigator,
the present petition was filed on 15-11-24, without joining the investigator a
party to the petition. It is thus clear that no second surveyor has been
appointed, as alleged, but an “investigator” has been appointed to conduct
forensic study of the books of accounts of the petitioner. Judgments placed
on record pertains to appointment of “Second Surveyor”, where as the
Insurer is well within their right to ascertain the correctness and genuineness
of the claim put forth and can also seek assistance of Out Side agencies as
per clause 19 of the Surveyors Management Policy for Public Sector
Insurance Companies (Document R-2, page 233 of Compilation), has
appointed the Investigator. Learned counsel has further submitted that the
petitioner is relying upon the Regulation framed by the IRDA regarding
claim Procedure in Respect of General Insurance Policy, a bare reading of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 16-07-2026
18:48:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19082
5 WP-36267-2024
the same would reveal, it is time bound procedural Regulations intended for
speedy disposal of the claims. The provisions cast duty upon both the
Insured and the insurer to comply their part of obligations. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court while dealing with the amendment in Order 8 Rule 1 CPC.
held that all the Rules of Procedure are handmaid off Justice. The Object of
prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of Justice (Para 28) The
Hon’ble Supreme Court held the amendment as “directory and not
mandatory”. (Clause iv para 46). The insurer if not satisfied with the Survey
Report and has some queries, the insurer is well within their right to clear the
same before they settle the claim. If the petitioner has nothing to hide, they
should not object to the forensic study of their accounts. Learned counsel has
further submitted that the claim has not been admitted or rejected as yet.
There is no admission of any liability, as such no action can be taken upon
the Survey Report submitted by the Surveyor, as the same is not binding
upon the Insurer. To bolster his contentions, learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered in the case of
New India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pradeep Kumar reported in (2009) 7 SCC
787,
6. I have considered the rival submissions and also perused the
records and the judgments cited by both the parties.
7. Considering the submissions made at the bar and after considering
the relevant documents annexed with the present petition, prima-facie, it
transpires that the petitioner has lodged the claim with the Insurance
Company, for which, the Insurance Company has appointed the surveyor as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 16-07-2026
18:48:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19082
6 WP-36267-2024
prescribed under the provisions of Section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1938
( in short “the Act, 1938”). Section 64UM of the Act, 1938 is reproduced
hereunder for sake of reference.
“64UM. Surveyors or loss assessors.–(1) Save as otherwise provided in this
section, no person shall act as a surveyor or loss assessor in respect of general
insurance business after the expiry of a period of one year from the commencement
of the Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 (5 of 2015), unless he– (a)
possesses such academic qualifications as may be specified by the regulations made
under thisAct; and (b) is a member of a professional body of surveyors and loss
assessors, namely, the Indian Institute of Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors:
Provided that in the case of a firm or company, all the partners or directors or other
persons, who may be called upon to make a survey or assess a loss reported, as the
case may be, shall fulfil therequirements of clauses (a) and (b).
(2) Every surveyor and loss assessor shall comply with the code of conduct in
respect of his duties,responsibilities and other professional requirements, as may be
specified by the regulations made under the Act.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions, a class or class
of persons acting as a licensed surveyor or loss assessor prior to the commencement
of the Insurance Laws (Amendment)Act, 2015 (5 of 2015) shall continue to act as
such for such period as may be specified by the regulationsmade under this Act:
Provided that the surveyor or loss assessor shall, within the period as may be
notified by the Authority, satisfy the requirements of clause (a) and clause (b) of
sub-section (1), failing which, the surveyor or loss assessor shall be automatically
disqualified to act as a surveyor or loss assessor.
(4) No claim in respect of a loss which has occurred in India and requiring to be paid
or settled in India equal to or exceeding an amount specified in the regulations by
the Authority in value on any policy of insurance, arising or intimated to an insurer
at any time after the expiry of a period of one year from the commencement of the
Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 (5 of 2015), shall, unless otherwise
directed by the Authority, be admitted for payment or settled by the insurer unless
2[it] has obtained a report, on theloss that has occurred, from a person who holds a
licence issued under this section to act as a surveyor or loss assessor (hereafter
referred to as “approved surveyor or loss assessor”):
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the
right of the insurer to pay or settle any claim at any amount different from the
amount assessed by the approved surveyor or loss assessor.
(5) The Authority may, at any time, in respect of any claim of the nature referred to
in sub-section (4), 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 a reasonable time and the cost
of, or incidental to, such report shall be borne by the insurer.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 16-07-2026
18:48:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19082
7 WP-36267-2024
(6) The Authority may, on receipt of a report referred to in sub-section (5), issue
such directions as it may consider necessary with regard to the settlement of the
claim including any direction to settle a claim at a figure less than, or more than, that
at which it is proposed to settle it or it was settled and the insurer shall be bound to
comply with such directions:
Provided that where the Authority issues a direction for settling a claim at a figure
lower than that at which it has already been settled, the insurer shall be deemed to
comply with such direction if 1[it] satisfies the Authority that all reasonable steps,
with due regard to the question whether the expenditure involved is not
disproportionate to the amount required to be recovered, have been taken with due
dispatch by 2[it]:
Provided further that no direction for the payment of a lesser sum shall be made
where the amount of the claim has already been paid and the Authority is of opinion
that the recovery of the amount paid in excess would cause undue hardship to the
insured:
Provided also that nothing in this section shall relieve the insurer from any liability,
civil or criminal, to which 1[it] would have been subject but for the provisions of this
sub-section. (7) No insurer shall, after the expiry of a period of one year from the
commencement of the Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 (5 of 2015) pay to
any person any fee or remuneration for surveying, verifying or reporting on a claim
of loss under a policy of insurance unless the person making such survey,
verification or report is an approved surveyor or loss assessor.
(8) Where, in the case of a claim of less than the amount specified in sub-section (4)
in value on any policy of insurance it is not practicable for an insurer to employ an
approved surveyor or loss assessor without incurring expenses disproportionate to
the amount of the claim, the insurer may employ any other person (not being a
person disqualified for the time being for being employed as a surveyor or loss
assessor) for surveying such loss and may pay such reasonable fee or remuneration
to the person so employed as 1[it] may think fit.
(9) The Authority may in respect of any claim of value of less than the amount
specified in sub- section (4) on an insurance policy, if the claim has not been or is
not proposed to be reported upon by a surveyor or loss assessor, direct that such
claim shall be reported upon by an approved surveyor or loss assessor and where the
Authority makes such direction, the provisions of sub-sections (5) and (6) shall
apply in respect of such claim.
(10) Where, in relation to any class of claims, the Authority is satisfied that it is
customary to entrust the work of survey or loss assessment to any person other than
a licensed surveyor or loss assessor, or it is not practicable to make any survey or
loss assessment, it may, by an order, exempt such class of claims from the operation
of this section.]
8. From bare perusal of the same, it transpires that there is no
whisper for appointment of any Investigator, pursuant to that, even on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 16-07-2026
18:48:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19082
8 WP-36267-2024
perusal of the entire scheme of the Insurance Act, 1938, no specific
provision is found, by which, the Insurance Company can appoint
Investigator, that too after the survey is carried out by the surveyor, who is
approved on the panel of the Insurance Company. It also transpires from the
record that pursuant to the some policies, the Investigator is appointed, more
particularly, if the Insurance Company is found that on the basis of report of
the surveyor, some more details are required to be verified in appropriate
manner to avoid any foul claim in such claims claimed by the parties. It is
also relevant to refer to the notification dated 22nd June, 2017 issued by the
Government of India, by which the Insurance Regulatory and Development
Authority of India (Protection of Policyholders’ Interests), Regulation, 2017,
provides the objectives of the Act, which read as under
Objectives :
(i) To ensure that interests of insurance policyholders are protected.
(ii) To ensure that insurers, distribution channels and other regulated entries fulfill
their obligations towards policy holders and have in place standard procedures and
best practices in sale and service of insurance policies.
(iii) To ensure policyholder- centric governance by insurers with emphasis on
grievance redressal.
9. It is also relevant to note the Regulation no. 15, which pertains to
the claim procedure in respect of General Insurance Policy, which reads as
under :
15. Claim procedure in respect of a general insurance policy.-(1) 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 may be allowed by the insurer.
On receipt of such a communication, ageneral insurer shall respond immediately and
give clear information 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 do so
immediately, in any case within 72 hours of the receipt of intimation from the
insured. Insurer shall communicate the details of the appointment of surveyor,
including the role, duties and responsibilities of the surveyor to the insured by letter,
email or any other electronic form immediately after the appointment of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 16-07-2026
18:48:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19082
9 WP-36267-2024
surveyor.
(2) The insurer/surveyor shall within 7 days of the claim intimation, inform the
insured/claimant of the essential documents and other requirements that the claimant
should submit in support of the claim. Where documents are available in public
domain or with a public authority, the surveyor/insurer shall obtain them.
(3) The surveyor shall start the survey immediately unless there is a contingency that
delays immediate survey, in any case within 48 hours of his appointment. Interim
report of the physical details of the loss shall be recorded and uploaded/forwarded to
the insurer within the shortest time but not later than 15 days from the date of first
visit of the surveyor. A copy of the interim report shall be furnished by the insurer to
the insured/claimant, if he so desires.
(4) 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 to the insured
under information to the insurer about the consequent delay that may result in the
assessment of the claim. It shall be the duty equally of the insurer and the surveyor
to follow up with the insured for pending information/ documents guiding the
insured with regard to submissions to be made. The insurer and/or surveyor shall not
call for any information/document that is not relevant for the claim.
(5)(i) The surveyor shall, subject to sub-regulation 4 above, submit his final report to
the insurer within 30 days of his appointment. A copy of the surveyor’s report shall
be furnished by the insurer to the insured/claimant, if he so desires. Notwithstanding
anything mentioned herein, in case of claims made in respect of commercial and
large risks the surveyor shall submit the final report to the insurer within 90 days of
his appointment. However, such claims shall be settled by the insurer within 30 days
of receipt of final survey report and/or the last relevant and necessary document as
the case may be.
(ii) Where special circumstances exist in respect of a claim either due to its
special/complicated nature, or due to difficulties associated with replacement/
reinstatement, the surveyor shall, seek an extension from insurer for submission of
his report. In such an event, the insurer shall give the status to the insured/ claimant
fortnightly wherever warranted. The insurer may make provisional/ on account
payment based on the admitted claim liability.
(6) 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/ claimant; 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 final survey report.
Provided that the facility of calling for an additional report by the insurer shall not
be resorted to more than once in the case of a claim.
(7) The surveyor, on receipt of this communication, shall furnish an additional
report within three weeks from the date of receipt of communication from the
insurer.
(8) On receipt of the final survey report or the additional survey report, as the case
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 16-07-2026
18:48:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19082
10 WP-36267-2024
may be, and on receipt of all required information/documents that are relevant and
necessary for the claim, an insurer shall, with in a period of 30 days reasons to be
recorded in writing and communicated to the insured/claimant, offer a settlement of
the claim to the insured/claimant. If the insurer, for any decides to reject a claim
under the policy, it shall do so within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the
final survey report and/or additional information/ documents or the additional
survey report, as the case may be.
(9) In case, the amount admitted is less than the amount claimed, then the insurer
shall inform the insured/claimant in writing about the basis of settlement in
particular, where the claim is rejected, the insurer shall give the reasons for the same
in writing drawing reference to the specific terms and conditions of the policy
document.
(10) In the event the claim is not settled within 30 days as stipulated above, the
insurer shall be liable to pay interest at a rate, which is 2% above the bank rate from
the date of receipt of last relevant and necessary document from the
insured/claimant by insurer till the date of actual payment.
10. Considering this background, it is also interested that initially
surveyor has carried out the loss by his report of survey and the documents
with necessary photographs, which are part of the record of present petition,
clearly indicates that there is some damage caused to the property, which is
insured by the Insurance Company, therefore, considering this aspect and
considering the rival contentions, it is relevant to note that the Insurance
Company ought to have settled the claim within a period of 30 days in
accordance with the process set up by the IRDAI under the Regulation no
15, under IRDAI Regulation, 2017, failing which, the Regulation 15, Sub-
clause (10) provides for payment of interest at the rate 2% above the Bank
Interest. It is also transpires from the provision of Regulation no. 15(6) of the
Regulation, 2017, the insurer is supposed to examine the contents of the final
survey report and if the insurer / Company finds that it is incomplete in any
respect, he shall require the same surveyor under intimation to the insurer, to
furnish additional report on certain specific report as may be required by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 16-07-2026
18:48:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19082
11 WP-36267-2024
insurer, within 15 days of the receipt of the final survey report. This mandate
has been violated in the present case. It also transpires from the record that
even if the Insurance Company is having any doubt about the final survey
report, then to appoint fresh surveyor under section 64UM of the Insurance
Act, 1938, which provides for licensing of the surveyors and loss assessors,
would be attracted and the Insurance Company ought to have gone to the
Regulatory Authority under the Insurance Regulatory and Development
Authority of India, 1999 and it was for the said Authority to call for an
independent report from any other Approved Surveyor or Loss Assessor
specified b it. It seems that this process is not followed.
11. Now, considering the judgments, which are cited by the parties,
it is relevant to refer to the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the
case of New India Insurance Company Vs. M/s Protection Manufactures
Pvt. Ltd, relevant paragraph of which, is reproduced for the sake ore
reference as under :
“The submissions of Mr. Piyush Gupta in regard to Section 64 UM of the Insurance
Act, 1938, are also of substance, as the Appellant Insurance Company should have
applied to the Regulatory Authority under the Act for a second opinion instead of
appointing M/s. J. Basheer & Associates for fhe said purpose unilaterally. The
reports submitted by M/s. J. Basheer & Associates are liable to be discarded on such
ground as well.”
12. It is also relevant to refer the judgment delivered by the Supreme
Court in the case of Sri Venkateswara Syndicate Vs. Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd reported in (2009) 8 SCC 507, wherein it is held that “it is not
open for the Insurance Company to support another Surveyor till such time,
it gets report in its favor.”
13. It is also relevant to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 16-07-2026
18:48:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19082
12 WP-36267-2024
delivered in National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. M/s Hareshwar Enterprises (P)
Ltd, reported in (2021) 7 SCC 682, wherein it has been held that the insurer
must take immediate steps upon receipt of the final survey report and
delayed appointment of an investigator cannot be considered to be have done
in good faith. In the instant case, the Insurance Company has appointed a
fresh surveyor almost 6 months after the receipt of the final survey report.
Relevant para no. 16 is reproduced hereunder :
“16. Thus, 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. In that background, as noted, 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.”
14. It is also relevant to refer to the judgment, which is cited by
counsel for the respondent, delivered in the case of New India Insurance Co.
Ltd Vs. Pradeep Kumar reported in (2009) 7 SCC 787, Relevant paragraph
no. 21 is reproduced hereunder :
“21. Section 64-UM(2) of the Act 1938 reads:
“No claim in respect of a loss which has occurred in India and requiring to be paid or
settled in India equal to or exceeding twenty thousand rupees in value on any policy
of insurance, arising or intimated to an insurer at any time after the expiry of a period
of one year from the commencement of the Insurance (Amendment) Act, 1968,
shall, unless otherwise directed by the Authority, be admitted for payment or settled
by the insurer unless he has obtained a report, on the loss that has occurred, from aSignature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 16-07-2026
18:48:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1908213 WP-36267-2024
person who holds a licence issued under this section to act as a surveyor or loss
assessor (hereafter referred to as “approved surveyor or loss assessor”):
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the
right of the insurer to pay or settle any claim at any amount different from the
amount assessed by the approved surveyor or loss assessor.”
15. Considering these aspects, it is not in dispute that this Court can
exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in
view of the above position of law. It is also not in dispute that prima-facie,
the action of the respondent / Insurance Company to appoint investigator is
not found in accordance with law and the Insurance Company has failed to
discharge his statutory obligations by settling claim within 30 days, however,
considering the fact that there are some issues, for which, learned counsel for
the respondent / Insurance Company has drawn attention of this Court
regarding veracity of the accounts and the other material relating to the
accounts. It is submitted by the Insurance Company that the investigator is
appointed by appointing Chartered Accountant, with a view to clarify certain
aspects relating to accounts, so that the claim can be settled accordingly after
receipt of the report of the investigator. However, this Court is of the
considered opinion that there is no such provision in view of the provisions
of the Insurance Act, more particularly section 64 UM and considering other
sections also, even considering the section 114 (a) of the Insurance Act,
which is sought to be relied by learned counsel for the respondent / Insurance
Company is not much helpful to the face of the respondent / Insurance
Company, though the section 114 prescribes powers of the Authority to
make regulation, but there is no specific mention about the appointment of
such insurer pursuant to such regulations, moreover, the procedure is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 16-07-2026
18:48:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19082
14 WP-36267-2024
already prescribed under section 64UM in view of the Regulation 15 of the
Regulation, 2017 by following necessary procedure in case of some doubt or
difficulty regarding the final report of the surveyor. Instead of following that
procedure, the Insurance Company has obtained to appoint investigator,
which is not found in consonance with the statutory procedure, therefore,
interference is required by this Court in the impugned action of the
respondent / Authority.
16. Accordingly, present petition is required to be allowed as the
impugned action of the respondent / Insurance Company is found against the
statutory provision and also arbitrary and improper. The prayers made in para
no. 7 of the present petition are granted.
17 Let the Insurance Company / Authority may do the needful to
proceed with the finalization of the claims by following necessary procedure
as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 30 days from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order, by considering the provision of section
64 UM and the Insurance Act, 1938 and all the sub-clauses of Regulation no.
15 of the Regulation, 2017 in accordance with law and do the needful to
ascertain the amount, for which, the petitioner is found entitled pursuant to
the material available with the Insurance Company.
18. With the aforesaid discussions, the present petition is allowed in
terms of the paragraph no. 7 of the petition with no order as to cost.
CC as per rules.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 16-07-2026
18:48:34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19082
15 WP-36267-2024
amol
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 16-07-2026
18:48:34
