PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 01.07.2013 passed by the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No. 37/2012 – M/s. PRS Constructions & Exporters Vs. Authorized Signatory, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.& Anr. by which, complaint was partly allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/appellant’s vehicle OR 05 AT 7016 was insured by OP/respondent for a period of one year from 18.02.2012 to 17.02.2013. Vehicle met with an accident on 24.4.2012 and suffered extensive damage. Matter was reported to the Police as well as to OP. On the next day, the complainant lodged claim with OP. It was further submitted that in presence of surveyor, Authorized representative demanded Rs.5,00,000/- as advance for repairs, but payment was not made. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complainant submitted preliminary estimate from Niranjan Lal Automobiles on 9.6.2012 for Rs.11,48,295/- and another estimate from Podar Motors on 11.6.2012 for Rs.14,22,885/-. Surveyor assessed loss of Rs.9,30,000/- and OP intimated to the complainant about assessment of loss and agreed to pay loss as assessed by surveyor. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties allowed complaint partly and directed OP to pay Rs.9,30,000.50 with 9% p.a. interest from 1.10.2012 till payment and further awarded Rs.7,000/- as costs against which, this appeal has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that inspite of extensive damages and loss estimates, learned State Commission committed error in allowing compensation as per surveyors report; hence, appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, appeal be dismissed. 5. Perusal of record reveals that only two estimates were filed by the complainant and has not filed repair bills by which it could have been ascertained that more than Rs.9,30,000/- were spent by complainant in getting vehicle repaired. In such circumstances, learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing compensation as per surveyors report. 6. As far delay in assessment of loss is concerned, vehicle met with an accident on 24.4.2012. Vehicle could not be brought to garage till 23.6.2012. In such circumstances, intimation by OP to the complainant regarding making payment of Rs.9,30,000/- as per surveyors report cannot be said to be delay in assessment of loss. 7. In the light of above discussion, appeal is liable to be dismissed at admission stage. 8. Consequently, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs. |
