The respondent has also invited our attention to the fact that in Galada’s case (supra), this Court has had no occasion to consider the efficacy of Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors (Licensing, Professional Requirements and Code of Conduct) Regulations, 2000, which came into effect from 14th November, 2000. For, the claim in Galada’s case (supra) arose in 1998 and the repudiation took place in 1999. By virtue of
the regulations, it is mandatory to appoint a surveyor on receipt of intimation about the loss; and the surveyor so appointed has to discharge his responsibilities and duties specified in the regulations while submitting its report.
24. Thus, the appointment of a surveyor by the respondent after receipt of intimation of the loss from the appellant, in the context of the present insurance policy, coupled with the 2000 Regulations and in particular an express stand taken in the repudiation letter dated 18th February, 2005 sent by the respondent to the appellant after consideration of the surveyor‟s report, it cannot be construed to be a case of waiver on the part of the respondent.
25. The appellant would then contend that the respondent did not take a plea that the surveyor was appointed because of statutory obligation. Such a plea is raised for the first time before this Court. Even this submission does not commend us. For, that plea has been taken as an additional factor to distinguish the decision in Galada’s case (supra). The party is not expected to state the provisions of law in its pleading. The
fact that such obligation flows from the regulation, in that sense, is a mixed question of fact and law.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1217-1218 OF 2017
M/s. Sonell Clocks and Gifts Ltd. Vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
Dated:August 21, 2018.
Citation: 2018 ACJ 2672 : AIR 2018 SC 4146 : 2018 (4) CPJ 1 : JT 2018 (8) SC 289 : 2018 (4) RCR (Civil) 203 : 2018 (10) Scale 24 : 2018 (7) SLT 325 : (2018) 9 SCC 784
