Haryana

StateCommission

A/553/2015

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BIRO DEVI - Opp.Party(s)

R.C.GUPTA

22 Jul 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                              

First Appeal No  :      553 of 2015

Date of Institution:      30.06.2015

Date of Decision :       22.07.2015

 

National Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Outer Quilla Road, Rohtak, now through its authorized signatory of Regional office, SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

1.      Smt. Biro Devi w/o late Partap Singh

2.      Ravinder s/o Sh. Partap

3.      Smt. Seema wd/o Naresh s/o Sh. Partap

4.      Grima minor daughter of Naresh Kumar

5.      Gaurav minor s/o Sh. Naresh Kumar s/o Sh. Partap

          Both minors through their mother Smt. Seema as next friend and legal guardian

          All Residents of Village Titoli, Tehsil and District Rohtak.  

 

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                

Present:              Shri R.C. Gupta, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

National Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated April 24^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Rohtak.

2.      Partap Singh-since deceased, husband of Biro Devi-complainant (respondent) and father of respondents No.2 to 5, got his                   car bearing registration No.HR-12H-6949, insured with the Insurance Company from September 2^nd, 2008 to September 1^st, 2009, vide Insurance Policy (Annexure A-1). The Insured Declared Value (for short ‘IDV’) of the car was Rs.2,65,000/-.  On August 29^th, 2009 Suresh Kumar s/o Sh. Randhir Singh was driving the car.  When the car reached in the area of Police Post Titoli, District Rohtak at about 9.30 P.M a Nilgai (Blue Bull) suddenly came in front of the car and struck against it.  The car was damaged.  The Police of Police Post, Titoli, District Rohtak was immediately informed.  The Daily Diary Report No.10 (Annexure A-4) was recorded. The Insurance Company was also informed. The car was brought to Raj Motors, Rohtak for repair. The Insurance Company appointed Shri I.B. Mehta, Surveyor, who inspected the vehicle and prepared report (Annexure A-2) whereby he assessed the liability of the insurer to pay Rs.1,89,000/- to the complainant. The complainant claimed compensation but the insurer did not pay the insured amount. He filed Petition No.94 of 2011, before the Chairman Permanent Lok Adalat, for Public Utility Services, Rohtak, wherein vide order dated March 12^th, 2012, the Insurance Company was directed to decide the claim of the complainant within 40 days. However, the Insurance Company repudiated complainant’s claim vide letter dated April 16^th, 2012, (Annexure A-7), stating therein as under:-

“In view of the order of Permanent Lok Adalat for public Utility Services, Rohtak on the above subject, after going through the investigation report of Major Mehar Singh (Retd) and after legal process of your claim, your claim has been repudiated on the following grounds:

1. That there is contradictory version about the cause of accident in DDR, claim form and your letter dated 29.03.2010 which creates cloud on the cause of accident.
2. You did not extend cooperation to our investigator Major Mehar Singh in as much as:

1. about exact spot of accident where the insured vehicle is claimed to have met with accident;
2. names of the persons who were travelling in the vehicle at the time of the accident and their addresses;
3. Name of the person who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident with his detailed statement regarding cause of accident;
4. Name of the person(s) who were injured in the accident and name of the hospital where they were treated, CR No. and date, copy of discharge certificate, etc.
5. In which capacity the person at the time of accident was driving the vehicle. Was he paid drive r or otherwise?”

3.      The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4.      The Insurance Company contested the complaint by filing reply reiterating the ground mentioned in repudiation letter Annexure A-7.

5.      District Forum vide impugned order allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company as under:-

“….it is directed that opposite party shall pay the amount as assessed by the surveyor i.e. Rs.189000/- (Rupees one lac eighty nine thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 24.08.2012 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2200/- (Rupees two thousand two hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainants within one month from the date of decision failing which the opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision. However, the ½ share of the awarded amount will be paid to the complainant No.1 Smt. Biro Devi widow of the deceased Partap and remaining awarded amount will be paid to the complainant No.2 to 5 in equal share. However the amount after disbursement on account of complainants No.4 to 5 of minor daughter and son should be deposited in any nationalized bank till their majority. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.”

 

6.      To assail the order of the District Forum, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has laid much stress on the report (Annexure A-3) of Major Mehar Singh (Retd), that is, second surveyor, wherein it was observed that “I am of the opinion that as per my physical inspection of the insured vehicle, scrutiny of the case file, the damages to the vehicle can not be attributed to any of the three causes mentioned in the case file.”

7.      This Commission does not concur with the submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.      It is not in dispute that the first surveyor Shri I.B. Mehta, was appointed by the Insurance Company, who inspected the vehicle and gave report (Annexure A-2), the extract of which is reproduced as under:-

                   “Survey:

On getting instruction from Regional Office, Chandigarh on 04.09.2009, I, the undersigned proceeded to M/s Raj Motors, Rohtak on 04.09.2009 and, inspected the vehicle, where the vehicle was lying. The undersigned inspected the vehicle & found that the vehicle was in extensively damaged condition, could not be brought to its original condition. Further, my opinion was that repairing cost would much more. As such insured was not willing to get the vehicle repaired and stress upon to surrender the vehicle on total loss basis.

Mr. Chaudhri (Divisional Manager, DO-I, Rohtak) was appraised of damages noted apparently. The matter was discussed in detail in presence of insured. The matter was discussed from all angles and aspects, such as assessment of loss on repair basis, total loss basis & on net of salvage basis. Finally, after great persuasion and business like discussion, having appraised the insured of the aspects, angles of respective settlement, and the net liabilities on repair cost is much more if the claim is to be settled on REPAIR BASIS, which to my approach is not beneficial/economical for the insurers………………”

“In light of above mentioned figures of assessment/mode of settlement of claim, the net liability of insurer on REPAIR BASIS is Rs.234722/-, net liability on TOTAL LOSS BASIS is Rs.239500/- moreover expenses of garage charges for keeping the vehicle till disposal & advertisement charges for disposal of vehicle will be additional & condition of vehicle will deteriorate and may not fetch the same value at the time of disposal. Net liability on NET OF SALVAGE BASIS is Rs.189000/-. The liability on NET OF SALVAGE BASIS OF Rs.189000/- to my approach is economical/beneficial, subjected to the approval of insurer, the insured will have to loose the policy of insurance Chassis No.600149FTZP82485.

 

OBSERVATIONS:-

1. Damages sustain are fresh and identical with the nature of the accident.
2. RC and Driving licence were verified by the undersigned and attested copies are attached.
3. The Photographs were arranged by the undersigned at the time of Survey and are enclosed for your ready reference.
4. The Chassis No. was physically verified by the undersigned”.

 

8.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sri Venkateswara  Syndicate Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another, (2009) 8 SCC 507, held that “Surveyor/Surveyors are appointed by the Insurance Company under the provisions of the Insurance Act and their reports are to be given due importance and one should have sufficient grounds not to agree with the assessment made by them. The Insurance Company cannot go on appointing Surveyors one after another so as to get a tailor-made report to the satisfaction of the officer concerned of the Insurance Company; if for any reason, the report of the Surveyors is not acceptable, the insurer has to give valid reasons for not accepting the report. The option to accept or not to accept the report is with the insurer. However, if the rejection of the report is arbitrary and based on no acceptable reasons, the Courts or other Forums can definitely step in and correct the error committed by the insurer while repudiating the claim of the insured. We hasten to add, if the reports are prepared in good faith, with due application of mind and in the absence of any error or ill motive, the Insurance Company is not expected to reject the report of the Surveyors.”

9.      In the instant case the best piece of evidence is the report (Annexure A-2) of the first surveyor Shri I.B. Mehta, vide which he found the loss occurred to the complainant to the extent of Rs.1,89,000/- on salvage basis.  The said report (Annexure A-2) has been taken into consideration by the District Forum while awarding compensation of Rs.1,89,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint, that is, 24.08.2012 till its actual realization and Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses. The appointment of the second surveyor was arbitrary and the report given by him was baseless.  Neither the Insurance Company has given any valid reason not to accept the report of first surveyor nor any evidence contrary to it has been produced. So, due weightage has to be given to the report of first surveyor.

10.    In view of the above, the order passed by the District Forum requires no interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondents-complainants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

[[

Announced 22.07.2015

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL