STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 04.12.2017
Date of final hearing: 02.05.2023
Date of pronouncement: 07.06.2023
First Appeal No.1464 of 2017
In the matter of :-
Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited through authorized officer Sh. Amit Kumar, Assistant Manager (TP Claims), Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited, Kailash Building, 3rd Floor, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. …..Appellant
Versus
Aziz son of Haji Hamid, aged 52 years, resident of Ward No. 10, F.P. Jkhirka, District Mewat. …..Respondents
CORAM: Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member
Argued by:- Sh. R.K. Sharma, counsel for the appellant.
Sh. Saleem Ahmed, counsel for the respondent.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Delay of 08 days in filing of present appeal stand condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay.
2. Challenge in this appeal No.1464 of 2017 is to the legality of order dated 10.10.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-Nuh (Mewat) (In short “District Commission”) in complaint case No.12 of 2016. Through impugned Order, complaint has been allowed.
3. Complainant is registered owner of car No. HR-27J-0916. It was insured with appellant/insurer with currency period of 15.05.2013 to 14.05.2014. Vehicle suffered damage in a road accident on 15.09.2011. Appellant was informed regarding accident telephonically and also in writing. Employee of appellant inspected the damaged vehicle and on assurance given to complainant; he (complainant) spent Rs.2.00 lacs on repair of vehicle. He requested insurer/appellant to pay the amount of bills. He filed application No. 637 of 2012 against insurer/appellant before Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Service). It was decided in his favour. On these pleas, he has filed complaint for issuance of direction to appellant/insurer to pay Rs.2,20,000/- with interest.
4. Appellant/insurer raised contest. In defence, it is pleaded that complainant has no cause of action and locus-standi. Complaint is false and frivolous it is denied that intimation regarding road accident of vehicle was sent by complainant on telephone and in writing. It is denied that vehicle was inspected by employee of insurer. It is pleaded that as per investigator’s report; damage to vehicle was assessed to the tune of Rs.19,650/- and insurer was ready to pay the same. By denying other pleas; insurer has prayed for dismissal of complaint.
5. Complainant led evidence, oral as well as documentary and closed the same on 27.01.2017 through his statement. No evidence has been led by OPs and in this process, insurer/OP has availed seven effective opportunities to lead evidence. Ultimately, its evidence was closed by Forum’s order dated 18.08.2017.
6. On analyzing the complainant’s evidence learned District Consumer Commission vide order dated 10.10.2017 has allowed the complaint; directed appellant/insurer to pay Rs.49,770/- to him within 30 days failing which it will pay the amount with interest of 9% from date of filing of filing of complaint (18.09.2015) till payment. OP has also been directed to pay Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses.
7. Feeling aggrieved this appeal has been filed by OP/insurer.
8. I have heard both parties at length and with their assistance the record of learned District Commission too has been perused.
9. On behalf of appellant/insurer it is urged that impugned order dated 10.10.2017 is illegal and erroneous. Evidence has not been properly appreciated. Insurer’s surveyor’s report dated 06.02.2012 has been wrongly ignored by learned District Consumer Commission for no reason. Surveyor has assessed loss to the tune of Rs.19,650/- towards repair of damage vehicle. It is contended that complainant has produced manipulated bills. In this regard, it is urged that in the bill Ex.C-9; amount of Rs.23,640/- has been shown for window, but no window has been purchased. Complaint should have been dismissed solely on this ground. Normal wear and tear caused to vehicle is not payable. Surveyor has already awarded Rs.13,900/- as labour charges. Learned District Consumer Commission has arbitrarily awarded Rs.20,000/- as labour charges. Collectively, on these submissions, insurer has urged that impugned order dated 10.10.2017 is not legally sustainable.
10. Per Contra, learned counsel for complainant has urged that impugned order is the outcome of proper appreciation of evidence led by complainant and same warrants no interference in this appeal.
11. On critically analyzing the facts; this Commission is of firm opinion that learned District Consumer Commission-Nuh (Mewat) has adopted a considerate, rational pragmatic and justice oriented approach to the genesis of controversy, while assessing compensation amount. Be that as it may, no new window was purchased but only its repairing had been carried out yet, the Commission has deducted the amount of Rs.23,640/- meant for window in the bill Ex.C-9 which is of the total value of Rs.51,040/-. By awarding Rs.3,000/- towards wind screen; the learned District Consumer Commission has taken note of the fact that this amount was not included in bill Ex.C-9. Rightly, Rs.2,120/- has been awarded towards electric wiring work in terms of bill Ex.C-5 and Rs.4,000/- has been awarded towards towing charges. There is absolutely no illegality, while awarding Rs.20,000/- for labour charges. It has to be borne in mind that cost towards labour charges is ever increasing, in present day scenario, with constant rise in price index. This Commission does not see any error in the equitable approach to the controversy as adopted by learned District Consumer Commission- Nuh and visible as such in its order dated 10.10.2017.
12. Insurer’s/appellant’s stand on surveyor report Annexure A-7 dated 06.02.2012 stood traumatized. Its contention in this regard is bereft of credence. Reason is obvious. Insurer/appellant has not led any evidence before learned District Consumer Commission. Its Surveyor (Sh. Dinesh Kumar Gupta) who palpably has authored report Annexure A-7 dated 06.02.2012 has not stepped in witness box to prove his Motor Survey Report. Merely producing the same on record, will not dispense with its formal proof. Lately, Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as “National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Vedic Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd.” Civil Appeal No. 4979 of 2019 decided on 17.05.2023 has held that: surveyor’s report is not the final one, nor it is so sacrosanct as to be incapable of being departed from. In the present case, nothing stopped appellant/insurer to lead evidence, admissible in law, before the proceedings of learned District Consumer Commission. However, in its wisdom appellant has not led any evidence, despite availing seven (07) effective opportunities on that front. Credibility of surveyor’s report dated 06.02.2012 has not been established within the parameters of law and hence there are all reasons before this Commission to depart from surveyor’s report dated 06.02.2012.
13. This being the factual scenario of present appeal; this Commission is of considered view that impugned order dated 10.10.2017 does not suffer from any infirmity or any illegality. Order dated 10.10.2017 is the outcome of proper appreciation of facts and evidence by learned District Consumer Commission-Nuh. It is maintained and affirmed. Appellant/insurer has been rightly non-suited. This appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.
14. Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by appellant at the time of filing of this appeal be refunded to it, after due identification and verification as per rules and on expiry of period meant for further appeal /revision, if any.
15. Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
16. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
17. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 07th June, 2023
Naresh Katyal
Judicial Member
Addl. Bench-II
D.K
