1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that her Oil Tanker (10 wheeler) truck bearing registration No. OD 10A 5929, Engine No.DTPZ115801, Chasis No.MBICTDYC1DPTJ1260 while returning from Visakhapatnam with liquid fuel load on 24.12.2014 at about 9.00 AM met with an accident near Model School, Kunduli under Pottangi PS for which said PS registered a case vide No.71 dt.24.12.2014 u/s.279/337 IPC. It is submitted that the Tanker truck was duly insured with OP vide Policy No.163202/31/13/6300003431 under first party risk and after completion of necessary formalities, a claim of Rs.3, 00,416/- was advanced before the OP but the OP agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1, 10,000/- against the above claim. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP she filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to pay the claim amount of Rs.3,00,416/- with interest besides compensation and cost to the complainant.
2. The OP filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the first party insurance issued in favour of the alleged truck bearing No. OD 10A 5929 w.e.f 20.01.2014 to 19.01.2015 and the fact of accident to the insured vehicle on 24.12.2014. It is contended that the Surveyor visited the garage, took photographs and estimated the loss at Rs.1, 10,000/- and the Insurance Co. agreed to settle the claim. It is further contended that the insured has not paid premium towards coverage of risk under IMT 23 and the Insurance Co. Intimated the fact to the insured through letters but the insured did not receive the settled amount. It is also further contended that the OP has settled the claim in terms of policy and sent the loss vouchers to the complainant but she did not respond the same. Thus denying any deficiency in service on its part the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. Both the parties have filed certain documents along with affidavits in support of their cases. Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record. The A/R for the complainant filed written argument.
4. In this case it is an admitted fact that the complainant is the owner of oil tanker bearing No. OD 10A 5929 and the vehicle was insured with OP vide Policy No.163202/31/13/6300003431 under first party risk from 20.01.2014 to 19.01.2015. It is a fact that the insured vehicle while coming from Visakhapatnam with fuel load met with an accident near Model School, Kunduli under Pottangi PS and a case vide No.71 dt.24.12.2014 was registered at Pottangi PS u/s.279/337 IPC. The case of the complainant is that after completion of all formalities, she submitted the claim for damage of Rs.3, 00,416/- but the OP agreed to pay Rs.1, 10,000/- against the above claim arbitrarily.
5. The OP stated that the surveyor inspected the garage and made an estimate of Rs.1, 10, 000/- towards loss and the OP agreed to settle the claim but when the OP sent loss voucher to settle the claim, the complainant did not agree. The OP further stated that the complainant has not paid premium towards coverage of risk for paint work as she has not paid premium towards IMT 23.
6. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, we have gone through the policy document along with details of loss assessment made by the surveyor. It is found from the policy document that the policy in question is subject to terms and conditions and IMT endorsement Nos.7, 21, 39 attached in the policy. IMT endorsement 23 has not been mentioned or attached in the policy document. According to the OP, in the instant case, the complainant has not paid any amount towards coverage of risk under IMT 23 and under the said clause if premium is not paid, loss towards painting of the insured vehicle will not be covered. This aspect of the case was not properly challenged by the complainant in this case.
7. We have also carefully perused the details of loss assessment sheet available on record. The surveyor has assessed the loss towards painting at Rs.34, 000/- but deleted the same from the final assessment since it is not covered under the risk. Surveyor is under obligation to assess the loss in terms of the policy and cannot suggest deductions on mere assumption. The surveyor in this case has deleted the loss towards painting with cogent reasons. Further report of surveyor is an important document and cannot be easily brushed aside without any compelling evidence to the contrary.
8. In this case, the surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs.1, 10,000/- considering every aspect of the matter and hence in our opinion, the complainant is entitled to the said assessed amount but unfortunately she has not accepted the same. Further under “remark” in its report at para-5 stated that during course of inspection he found that the chassis of the truck is bent due to reported accident but the said fact has not been mentioned in the estimate submitted by the complainant. The surveyor has suggested in his report to the Insurance Co. to allow Rs.10, 000/- towards cost of repair of the chassis. In view of the above fact, we are inclined to add Rs.10, 000/- in the loss assessed and thus the total assessment came to Rs.1, 20,000/-. In this case, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OP since the assessment has been properly done giving repeated opportunities to the complainant to put her case. Hence the complainant is not entitled for any compensation. However, the assessed amount of Rs.1, 20, 000/- certainly bears interest and we wish to give 9% interest on the said assessed amount from the date of survey report i.e. 14.03.2016. Further the complainant has come up with this case incurring some expenditure and we feel a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.
9. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Opp. Party is directed to pay Rs.1, 20,000/- towards settlement of insurance claim with interest @ 9% p.a. from 14.03.2016 and to pay Rs.5000/- towards cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.
(to dict.)
