A surveyor’s loss assessment may be relied upon absent cogent evidence to the contrary.

The appellant insured a Mobile Harbour Crane under a policy issued by the respondent.

The crane was damaged by fire on 27 April 2019, and the respondent repudiated the claim, relying on reports attributing the fire to unsafe pump operation and negligence.

The surveyor assessed the loss, including depreciation and under-insurance.

The Single Judge decreed the suit for Rs. 11,89,70,780 with interest at 9% per annum from 24 January 2020 until repayment.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the loss assessment and sought additional amounts for customs duties, interest and costs; the respondent defended the surveyor’s assessment and the repudiation

Whether the appellant established grounds to depart from the licensed surveyor’s assessment of the crane’s loss, including its depreciation and under-insurance

Whether the appellant was entitled to enhanced interest and costs

Under Section 64-UM(2) of the Insurance Act, 1938, a licensed surveyor’s assessment is a statutory evidentiary foundation for claims of the prescribed amount, but it is not conclusive or binding; it may be displaced by reliable contrary evidence (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pradeep Kumar).

A surveyor’s report may be accepted where it inspires confidence and is not effectively rebutted; contrary material must be evaluated for reliability and relevance (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hareshwar Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.).

An insurer departing from a surveyor’s assessment must provide cogent and satisfactory reasons (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vedic Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd.); legitimate reasons are also required to depart from such a report (Sikka Papers Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.).

The sum insured and an insurer’s acceptance of a declared value may constrain the assessment of loss in the circumstances considered in Sumit Kumar Saha v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Dharmendra Goel v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

The Court found that the appellant produced no technical or eyewitness evidence, expert opinion, or supporting documents to rebut the surveyor’s assessment.

It accepted that the surveyor had relied on the insured’s last books of account and considered the sum insured under the policy for 2018–2019. The appellant therefore did not establish a legitimate basis to alter the assessment, including the depreciation calculation

Because the appellant failed to establish an error in the surveyor’s report warranting an enhanced claim, the Court also found no foundation for additional interest; it considered costs properly disallowed in light of the appellant’s failure on its other claims

It dismissed the appeal without an order as to costs and disposed of the connected interlocutory application