(1988)1988July27 [SAWIDES,J.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION LOUISANTONIOUANDOTHERS. Applicants, v. AGRICULTURALINSURANCEORGANISATION, , Respondents. (CaseNo.308/86). PublicCorporations—TheAgriculturalInsuranceOrganization—TheAgriculturalinsuranceRegulations,1977,(Regulations167177),Regs. 10
(5),10
(6)and21—Assessmentofdamage—Whetherinsuredshouldbegivenan opportunitytobepresentduringtheassessment—Questiondeterminedin theaffirmative—Mannerofnotificationofsuchdate. 5 GeneralprinciplesofadministrativeLaw—Presumptionofregularity—Dutyof agentofapublicbodytoinformapplicantsofthedatewhenaparticularactivity willtakeplace—Absenceofevidencethatthedutyhadnotbeenperformed—Assumptionthatthedutywasperformed. Theapplicants wereinsured withtherespondents againstdamageto JQ theirfruittreesfromhail.Asaresultofhailfalltheysuffered damage.The damage wasassessedbytherespondents.Theapplicantsapplied forreassessment Thedamagewasre-assessed.Suchre-assessmentisthesubject-matterofthisrecourse. Themaincomplaintoftheapplicantswasthattheywerenotgiventhe 15 opportunityofbeingpresentduringthereassessment.Therespondentsdisputedthattheapplicantshadsucharight.Neverthelesstheyarguedthatthe applicantshadsuchopportunityastherespondentshadnotified thesecretaryofthelocalco-operativesocietyandtheruralconstableofthedateof thereassessment.Therewasnoevidencethatthesecretarydidnotinform ^o theapplicantsofsuchadate. Held,dismissing therecourse:
(1)Regulation 10
(5)* givestheapplicantstherighttobepresentduringtheassessmentorre-assessment(Kazamiasv. TheAgriculturalInsuranceOrganization
(1988)3CLR. 625not followed). *Quotedatp. 1581post 1578 25 3 C.L.R. Antoniou v. Agr. InsuranceOrg.
(2)TheobjectofReg.10
(6)isentirelydifferent Itcreatesanobligation tobepresentattheassessment,iftheassessorsorequires.'
(3)Inthelightofpara.
(1)ante, theapplicantsshouldhavebeen noti fiedofthedateofassessment
(4)SuchnotificationmaybegiveninthemannerprovidedbyReg. 21* ThesecretaryofthelocalCo-operativeCreditSocietyisaninsuranceagent Intheabsenceofevidencetothecontrarythepresumptionofregularityap plies.Therefore,itmustbeassumedthathehaddulynotified—as,indeed, . itwashisdutytodo—theapplicantsofthedateofassessment• , 10 • Recoursedismissed. •• Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: Kazamiasv.TheAgriculturalInsuranceOrganization
(1988)3CJ-Λ.
- 15 Recourse. ι Recourse against therefusal of therespondents to increase the compensation.payable to applicants asaresult of damage caused totheirfruit trees by hail. • *. M.Tsangarides, fortheapplicants. ', L. Koursoumba(Mrs.), for the respondents. 20 ^c ι Cur.adv.vult. SAVVIDES J.read thefollowing"judgment. The applicants challenge, by this recourse, thedecision of therespondentscon tainedintheir letterdatedthe21stFebruary, 1986, by which they rejected theapplications of theapplicants for theincrease ofthe compensation payable tothem as a result of damage caused to theirfruit treesby hail." The applicants arefarmers and owners of fruit tree grovesin theareaofStatos-AyiosPhotiosvillagesin-'thedistrict ofPapho's. Quotedatp.
- J- " 1579 r Sawides J. Antoniou v.Agric.Insurance Org.
(1988)During 1985fruit treesincludingthoseoftheapplicants suffered damage asaresultof hail fall. Theapplicants,aswellasother owners whowere insured with therespondents againstdamage fromhail,applied totherespondents forcompensation.Therespondentsproceeded totheassessmentof thedamages andan- 5 nouncedtheresultsonthe28thAugust,
- Several objections wereraised against thesaidassessments, amongst which thoseof the applicants,which were considered anddetermined by the 12th December, 1985.Certainproducers whowerenotsatisfied with theoutcomeof theobjections made IQ representationstotheMinisterandwereaskedtopresentmaterial toprovetheirallegations,atameetingwiththeDirectorofAgriculturalInsuranceandtheArgiculturalInsuranceOfficer, which took place on the 30th December, 1985.The applicants were heardonthatdateandtherespondentsthereafter dismissed their 1 5 applications andinformed themaccordingly bylettersdatedthe 21stFebruary, 1985.Asaresultthepresentrecoursewasfiled. Counselforapplicantsargued,inhiswrittenaddress,thatthe respondents acted in excessof theirpower andcontrary tothe Lawandexercisedtheirdiscretion wronglyinthattheyfailed to 2 n invitetheapplicantstobepresentduringtheassessmentorreassessmentofthedamagestotheirtrees,contrarytotheprovisions ofRegulations 10and 11 ofthe1977Regulations(Not.167/77). It isalsothepositionoftheapplicantsthatthesubjudiceassessmentsdonotreflecttherealdamagesuffered bythem.Theyfiled, insupport,inthisrespect,theassessmentsmadeforthembytwo agriculturalists. Counselfortherespondentsdeniedthattherespondentshave anyobligationundertheLawtoinvitetheapplicantstobepresent butarguedthatinanyeventtheapplicantswereinformed orally about theassessments andreassessmentsbytheSecretaryofthe Co-operativeCreditSocietyandtheRuralConstableoftheirvillage.Astotheassessmentscounselarguedthattheywereproperly made andthisCourtcannotinterfere withthefindings ofthe assessors.Shefinally arguedthat itwasreasonablyopen tothe 35 1580 3 C.L.R. Antoniouv. Agric.Insurance Org. SawidesJ. respondentstodismisstheapplicants'applications inviewofthe fact they submittedfalseormisleading information inpresenting theircases. ' ' ' 5 10 TherelevantRegulations areTheAgricultural InsuranceRegulations, 1977,published in Supplement No.ΠΙ,partI,oftheof ficial Gazetteofthe Republic dated the29th July, 1977,under Not 167/
- Regulation 10
(5)reads asfollows: "
(5).6 ήσ<ραλισμένοςήο αντιπρόσωποςτούτουδύνα ται ναπαρίσταται κατά την εκτίμησιν καιναεκθέτη τας αντιλήψειςτόΰεπίτηςζημίας." andtheEnglish translation: "
(5).Theinsuredorhisrepresentative may.bepresentdur'*ingtheassessment andexpresshisviewsonthedamage." 15 20 Paragraph
(6)ofthesame Regulation, which was invoked by counsel fortherespondentsincontradistinctiontoparagraph
(5)inordertoshowthatthereisnoobligation onthepartofthere spondents toinvite theapplicants'tobepresentreads'as'follows, asfar asrelevant:, I "
(6).0ησφαλισμένοςυποχρεούταιόπως'επίδειξητοζημιωθέν αγροτεμάχιον ή ναπαραστήκατά την εκτίμη σιν. ...V·..;.. ; .».«».»........"...!..»/. ήναπαρέχηοιασδήποτεσχετικάςπληροφορίας όποτετούτοήθελεζητηθήυπότουεκτιμητού " And theEnglish translationisasfollows: 2 5 ^''*"
(6).Theinsuredisobligedtoshow,the damaged.field or to be present during the assessment or to forwardanyrelevantinformation „.wheneverhe Is requestedtodosobythe assessor ".' Thesamequestioncameupfor considerationincase No. 5367 1581 Sawides J. Antoniou v. Agric. Insurance Org.
(1988)84,CostasA. Kazamiasv.TheAgriculturalInsuranceOrganisa tion
(1988)3 C.L.R. 625. In that case Loris, J. ,came tothe conclusion thatthewordingofRegulation 10
(5),incontradistinc tion tothewording of Regulation 10
(6)is such as notto imply any obligation onthepartof therespondentstoinvite theappli- 5 canttobepresent Having considered thematterinthelight of thecontentsofthe Law andtheRegulations, Ifind myselfindisagreement withmy learned brotherinthisrespect.Itisclear thatthewording of Reg ulation 10
(5)givestheapplicants therighttobepresentif theyso JQ wish,during theassessment orreassessment,asthecasemaybe. As aresult theyhave arighttobeinformed of thedateof theas sessment orreassessment, inordertobeafforded the opportunity toexercise thisrightof theirs,otherwise suchrightwould have beenmeaningless. ThepurposeofRegulation 10
(6)isdifferent in 1 5 thatitgivestherighttotheassessor, if herequires thepresenceof the applicants, to request themto be there,in which case they have anobligation tobepresentandtheirrighttobepresent only if they sowishceases toexist. The right of theapplicants tobe informed, however,or any 20 obligation of therespondents tobring themattertotheirknowl edge may be satisfied by the provisions of Regulation 21(
- c)which provides as follows: "21.Τακυριώτερα καθήκοντατωνασφαλιστικώνπρα κτόρωνδύνανταινασυνοψισθούνωςακολούθως: «- (γ)Γνωστοποίησις ημερομηνίαςεπισκέψεωςεκτιμητού ήεπανεκτιμητών ούτωςώστεναδύνανται οιενδια φερόμενοι πληγέντες παραγωγοίεάν το επιθυμούν,να παρευρίσκονται κατά την διενέργειαντων εκτιμήσεων ή 30 επανεκτιμήσεων." 1582 ''3 C.L.R. - • • -• . ι '*Antoniou v.'Agri<\Insurance Org. · ν ·, . - , . . - , - ' · . . . • Andthetranslationin EngUsh: '..;» : / . / ! < ? · . ) • . ; ; > ··,·•· J ·. •' ; Sawides J. . Γ / / -'„•· '· " " •·. • it.»2i;-*nie'maindutiesofthe'insuranceagents may be siim" manzedasfollows: . ι " . ' · ! · . *;<„• Γ. '•-'ii-- r: ' • . . " ,*n -•..-^ ' . . * ' ' · ' • • * ' *" *J ' * \Y\"\V"".V,7"' 5 Oi 10 15 20 25 30 (
- c)Notificationofthedate.of thevisitoftheassessororre*• ' ' assessors.if?.A'.^...!l soastoenable those ofthe,'stricken producers who are interested,if they sowish,'to bepresent ^.duringjhe assessments or reassessments." As Isaidearlier counsel fortheapplicants argued thattherespondentsdidnotinvite theapplicantstobepresent,whilstcoun sel forthe respondents maintained that the applicants werein formed about the dates of the proposed assessments and reassessments, both through the Secretary ofthe Co-operative CreditSociety, whois theinsuranceagentoftherespondentsundertheLaw, aswellas throughthe ruralconstable. Noevidence was adduced,however,by either sideforthepurpose of estab lishingtheirallegations ordisprovingthoseoftheotherside. In theabsenceofany evidence tothecontrary,andhavingre gardtotheprincipleofregularity,itistobepresumedthattheinsurance agentoftherespondents,thatistheSecretary ofthe Co operative CreditSociety,intheproperdischarge ofhisduties un dertheLaw, has notified thedateofthe assessments andreas sessments inquestionandtheapplicantscould, byexercisingrea sonablediligence,ascertainthedatesthroughthenotifications and thusexercisetheirrighttobepresentornot. Although counselfor therespondentsargued alsothattheapplicantswerepresenteither personally orthroughrepresentatives, during theassessments or reassessments inquestion, Icannotfind thisasafact in theab senceofsatisfactory evidence tothis effect Inviewof theabove, thisgroundoftherecourse fails. As tothesubstance oftherecourse,thatistheallegation,that f 1583 Sawides J. Antoniou v.Agric.Insurance Org.
(1988)thesubjudiceassessments arenotcorrectanddonotreflect the real damage suffered by the applicants, having considered the mattercarefully, inthelightofthematerialbeforeme,whichwas alsobefore therespondents,Ifind thatitwasreasonablyopento therespondents,inthecircumstancesofthecase,toreachthesub 5 judicedecisionandnovalidreasonhasbeenshownforanyinterferencewithit. Intheresultthisrecoursefailsandisherebydismissedwithno orderforcosts. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. 1584