PER MR.B.S.WASEKAR, HON’BLE PRESIDENT

1)                The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant he is the owner of vehicle No.MH-01-AL-5545 and he was holding Private Car Package Policy bearing No.HBA/00091731 dated 22^nd October, 2012.  On 27^th July, 2013, the complainant’s Uncle Shri Krishnakant Gupte was driving the vehicle.  It met to an accident therefore the complaint was lodged with Bhoiwada Police Station.  On the same day, vehicle was taken to the authorized service centre and carried out the replacement and repair work of the bumper.  The service centre raised the invoice for Rs.38,640.89/-.  The complainant paid the amount.  The complainant called upon the customer care of the opponent and requested to reimburse the claim.  The opponent agreed to reimburse the claim of Rs.4,513.46/- only and refused to pay the balance.  The damage was assessed by the Surveyor of the opponent for Rs.14,191.12/-. But, the opponent sanctioned the claim only for Rs.4,513.46/-. Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint for recovery of Rs.38,640.89/- with interest. He has also claimed compensation of Rs.1 Lakh for mental agony and legal cost of Rs.50,000/-.

2)                The opponent appeared and filed written statement. The policy and accident is admitted.  It is submitted that as per Survey Report, the opponent is liable only to pay Rs.4,513.46/-.  The front bumper was missing as the vehicle was left unattended.  It is the breach of policy. Therefore, the opponent is not liable to pay the amount.  The report showing the amount Rs.14,191.12/- was the rough estimate.  As per Final Survey Report, claim was restricted to Rs.4,513.46/-.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3)                After hearing both the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.

POINTS

REASONS

4) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- The policy and the accident is not disputed. According to the complainant, the authorize service centre raised the invoice amounting to Rs.38,640.89/- and he paid the amount. The opponent sanctioned the amount of Rs.4,513.46/- only. Admittedly, Surveyor was appointed.  The Survey Report is on record.  It is for the amount of Rs.14,191.12/-.  According to the opponent, it was the rough estimate and as per final report, amount of Rs.4,513.46/- only is liable to be paid.  Both the surveyors are appointed by the opponent.  Earlier report estimating expenses of Rs.14,191.12/- was also the report of Surveyor appointed by the opponent.  The opponent can not reappoint second  Surveyor and reduced the estimate, without giving the reason for discarding the earlier Surveyor Report.  The learned advocate for the opponent has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble National Commission reported in III (2008) CPJ 158 (NC), in Revision Petition No.1079 of 2008, in the case of Pradeep Kumar Sharma –Versus- National Insurance Company Limited, decided on 23^rd April, 2008,  reported in I (2007) CPJ 278 (NC) in Revision Petition No.3075 of 2006, in the case of Suryachem Industries –Versus- Oriental Insurance Company Limited, decided on 1^st December, 2006,  reported in Revision Petition No.1481 of 2006, in the case of Kaur Singh –Versus- National Insurance Company Limited, decided on 26^th April, 2013 and the judgment of  Hon’ble State Commission, U.T., Chandigard in First Appeal No.186 of 2011 in the case of Reliance General Insurance Company Limited –Versus- Gurpinder Singh Grewal, decided on 13^th January, 2012.  In all these judgments, it is held that Surveyor’s Report is an important document and can not be ignored without giving any reason.  In the instant complaint before us there are two Survey Reports.  Both the Surveyors were appointed by the opponent. The reason given by the opponent for ignoring first survey report is not proper.  Therefore, the opponent is bound to pay the claim of the complainant as per Survey Report i.e. for Rs.14,191.12/-.

5)                The complainant has claimed amount of Rs.38640.89/-.  He has produced the Tax Invoice for it but has not produced the affidavit of the authorized person of the concern service centre to prove that the expenses were incurred for damage caused in the accident.  Thus, the complainant is entitled for the claim as per first Survey Report i.e. Rs.14191/-.  If, the amount of Rs.4,513/- is already paid then it should be deducted from the amount of Rs.14,191/-.  The complainant has also claimed compensation of Rs.1 Lakh for mental agony.  The opponent failed to pay the amount in spite of request thereby the complainant suffered from mental agony.   We think, the complainant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony.  Besides this, the complainant is entitled for the cost of Rs.5,000/- for this proceeding. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Complaint is allowed.
2. The opponent is directed to pay Rs.14,191/- (Rs. Fourteen Thousand One Hundred Ninety One Only) to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint i.e. 25^th November, 2013 till realization.
3. The opponent is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand Only) to the complainant as compensation towards mental agony.
4. The opponent is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five Thousand Only) to the complainant as cost of this proceeding.
5. The above order shall be complied with within a period of one month from today.
6. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

Pronounced on 23^rd December, 2014