Sri Purna Chandra Mishra,President

 The Complainant Susanta Kumar Sahu has filed this case U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP for not paying his insurance claim as per the actual loss and praying there is for a direction to the OP to pay a sum of Rs.5,66,547/- towards the insurance claim made by him with interest @ 12% P.A from the date of claim till its realization, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- transportation charge of Rs.12,000/- and parking charge of Rs.15,000/-.

1.           Brief fact leading to the case is that the petitioner is the registered owner of a motor Car bearing registration No. OD 03 A 4050 and the vehicle was insured with United India Insurance company for the period from 09.01.2017 to 08.01.2018. During the force of the policy on 19.11.2017 the car met with an accident and the complainant lodged his claim with the OP and as per his instructions took the vehicle to Mahidra First Choice Wheels Ltd, Raipur to assess the damage. After waiting for several days, the damage was not assessed and the company charged parking charges for which it was brought back on 18.01.2018 to Minarva Auto Mobile, Balangir and the damage estimate was sent to the OP. After several telephonic messages the surveyor of the company on 26.11.2018 intimated the petitioner that he will not get any amount for his loss without stating any reason for which he has been compelled to file this case before this Commission for this relief as discussed earlier. Besides he spent a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards cost of transportation and sum of Rs.14000 /-towards parking fees.

2.           After receipt of notice the OP appeared through his Advocate and filed his written statement. In his written statement the Ops denied the allegation that as per his instruction the vehicle was taken to Mahindra First Choice Wheels Ltd, Raipur for loss assessment. The OP admitted that the estimate of damage from Minarva  Auto Mobiles Pvt., Balangir was received . As he has not instructed to take the vehicle to Raipur, the question of giving transport charge does not arise. On receipt of intimation regarding the accident one Surveyor was appointed for spot survey which was completed on 20.11.2017. After receipt of the estimate the OP appointed another Surveyor and as the complainant was not ready to repair the vehicle loss assessment was made on cashless basic for Rs.1.66,000/-. The petitioner never repaired his vehicle and his claim for Rs.5,66,547/- is out of contract of insurance and  the estimate provided by the petitioner includes  GST and IDV of the vehicle which is declared to be Rs.45,000/- and the vehicle is 4 years old and depreciation of the parts have also been taken into consideration. As the OP has never denied his responsibility to the extent of the loss assessed by the Surveyor he is not deficient in rendering service and the complaint petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.

3.           The complainant in support of his case has filed the copy of the registration certificate of car No.OD 03 A4050, copy of the insurance policy No.2605883116P113284596, copy of the FIR No.126 dtd 19.11.2017 of Muribahal PS, copy of the quotation of Minarava Auto Mobiles, Balangir and money receipt of Transportation charge. On the other hand the OP has filed the final survey report  and copy of the insurance policy in question.

4.           Either of the parties have not adduced any oral evidence in support of their loss. So the Commission proceeded to disposed of the case on the basis of the documents filed by the parties.

5.           It is admitted by both the parties that the ill-fated vehicle was duly insured on the date of accident. The OP has raised his objection only on the ground that the petitioner   is unwilling to take the amount as assessed by the Surveyor where as the complainant objects that the estimate provided by the dealer Minarva Auto Mobiles Pvt, Balangir  is the actual estimate for the repair of the vehicle and the insurance company is avoiding to pay his just and genuine claim under the plea of survey report.  So the only question relating to this case is whether the complainant is entitled to get the amount as per the assessment of loss prepared by the Surveyor or is entitled to get the amount as per the estimate prepared by the authorized dealer.

6.           It is settled principle of law that the surveyor’s report can’t be brushed    unless it is proved that the report is in correct. In the present case the authorized dealer cum service centre has prepared the estimate of repair through his qualified and trained engineers. Since the authorized dealer cum service centre has prepared the estimate of repair, it will prevail over the survey report. I am fortified by a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission       reported in C.P.R-2009-(4)241 where in the Hon’ble National Commission has hold that the repair estimate prepared by the dealer can’t be rejected as it is based on proper expertise. The Insurance company in his written statement has nowhere whispered a single word that the estimate given by the authorized service centre is wrong and inflated. When the OP doesn’t challenge the estimate report in any manner we have no other option but to accept the same. As the OP has discharged his duty in time by deputing surveyor to the spot and making assessment after the estimate is prepared he is not deficient in rendering service. The only dispute relating to the parties is only regards to the amount of loss.

7.           The complainant has failed to prove that he was directed to take the vehicle to Raipur for which we are unable to find guilt  with the OP on this point.

8.              In view of the discussion  made above we are of the opinion that the estimate prepared by the authorized  service centre in correct and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the loss to the petitioner up to the insured value after deducting the depreciation as per IRDA guidelines  and hence the order.   

                                                                                                           O R D E R

The Complaint petition is allowed on contest in part, The OP is directed to make the payment as per the estimate prepared by the authorized dealer to the extent of IDVvalue after making necessary deduction as per law within a period of 30 days from the receipt of this order.

Parties to bear their own cost.