Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal  No. 318 of 2016

Sriram General Insurance Company Limited,

E-8, EPIP, RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura,

Jaipur (Rajasthan)-302022 Branch Office,

16, Chintal House, Station Road, Lucknow

through its Manager.                                            …Appellant.                                                                         

Anokhey Lal Yadav s/o Paanu Yadav,

R/o Mohalla Baidpura, Thana, Baidpura,

Distt. Etawah.                                                  .…Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra  Singh, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.

Sri Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for appellant.

Sri Umesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

Date  17.2.2023

JUDGMENT

Per Mr. Rajendra Singh, Member: This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 30.1.2016 passed by the District Forum, Etawah in complaint case no.48 of 2013.

          The brief facts of the appeal are that, that the impugned judgment is perverse and passed without application of mind. The impugned judgment and order is based on surmises, conjectures and unjust, the same is liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court. The impugned judgment and order dated 30.1.2016 passed by the District Forum, Etawah is erroneous, factually incorrect and legally perverse, is without appreciation of correct facts and law, and is based on presumptions and assumptions.

(2)

          A policy of insurance was issued in the name of the respondent/complainant for Mahindra Scorpio Car bearing no.UP 75 K-1516 for the period 14.4.2012 to 13.4.2013. The insured vehicle met with an accident on 15.7.2012 but the information has been given to the insurance company after a delay of 12 days. The surveyor was appointed who assessed the loss at Rs.89,330.00. The appellant sought clarification regarding delayed intimation and thereafter, claim was closed and information tendered to the complainant. Then complainant file a complaint case. The concerned District Forum did not appreciate the evidence and pleadings of the appellant and ignored the surveyor’s report and passed the impugned judgment which is as follows:

          “परिवाद विपक्षीगण के विरूध 2,99,000/- रू0 की वसूली हेतु स्वीकार किया जाता है इस धनराशि पर वाद योजन की तिथि वास्‍तविक भुगतान की तिथि तक 7 प्रतिशत साधारण ब्‍याज भेी देना होगा। विपक्षीगण को आदेशित किया जाता है कि उपरोक्‍तानुसार धनराशि निर्णय के एक माह में परिवादी को अदा करें।”

          We have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and perused all the pleadings, evidence and documents present on record. 

          We have perused the judgment of the ld. District Forum where 10 receipts of repairs were filed. The company got the vehicle surveyed by his surveyor and the surveyor did not take into consideration all the receipts of  repairs  tendered by the surveyor. If the claim was to be repudiated, there was no need to appoint surveyor to assess the loss. Appointment of surveyor clearly establishes the fact that there was no objection to the insurance company regarding delay.

          Surveyor report is not binding on the court and the ld. District Forum has placed reliance on the receipts of repair  tendered by the complainant and therefore, passed the

(3)

impugned judgment. We find no ground to interfere in the said judgment. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.      

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

  The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself. 

          Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.       

       (Sushil Kumar)                              (Rajendra Singh)

            Member                                    Presiding Member

Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.

Consign to record.

       (Sushil Kumar)                              (Rajendra Singh)

            Member                                    Presiding Member

Jafri, PA I

Court 2