RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No. 1566 of 2000

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,

Jeevan Bhawan, IIIrd Floor, 43, Hazratganj,

Lucknow, through its Manager.                     ….Appellant.

Versus

Sri Chunni Lal Verma, R/o Plot No.90,

Gadrian Purwa, Kanpur (U.P.)                   ….Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Raj Kamal Gupta, Member.

Sri B.P. Dubey, counsel for the appellant.

Sri Alok Sinha, counsel for the respondent.

Date  13.2.2018   

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma,  Member)

This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.5.2000, passed by the District Forum, Kanpur Nagar in complaint case no.987 of 1997.

The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are that the respondent/complainant's truck was insured the appellant/OP and during the validity of the insurance policy the vehicle met with an accident on 26.10.1995. The complainant pressed a claim with the OP and the Surveyor was appointed who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.20,386.00 whereas the complainant had made a claim for Rs.40,000.00. Despite complainant fulfilling all the formalities, the claim was not allowed, hence, a complaint was filed in the Forum below wherein the OP challenged the version of the complainant and stated therein that no FIR was lodged with regard to the accident.

(2)

Surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.14,665.00 and that amount was offered to the complainant but he refused to accept that. After hearing the parties, the Forum below passed the impugned order as under:-

          "फोरम आदेश करता है कि विपक्षी आदेश प्राप्ति के 30 दिन के अन्‍दर परिवादी को धनराशि 20,386.60 पैसा (बीस हजार तीन सौ छियासी रू0 साठ पैसा) अदा करें, क्षतिपूर्ति स्‍वरूप 3000/- (तीन हजार रू0) तथा वाद व्‍यय 1000/- (एक हजार रू0) भी अदा करें।

विपक्षी सम्‍पूर्ण धनराशि का परिवादी के नाम बैंक ड्राफ्ट/ चेक बनवाकर फोरम में जमा करे, जहां से परिवादी उसे प्राप्‍त कर सकेंगे।"

          Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order that the appellant has filed this appeal mainly on the grounds that the appellant was ready to make payment of the loss as assessed by the Surveyor but the respondent/complainant did not agree to that hence, the appellant did not commit any deficiency in service but the  ld. Forum has illegally passed the order without any logic. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal allowed.

          Heard counsel for the parties and perused the entire records.

In this case, it is not disputed that the complainant's vehicle was insured with the appellant/OP. The disputed point according to the appellant/OP is that they were ready to make payment of Rs.14,665.00 as per Surveyor's report about the loss occurring in the vehicle of the complainant in consequence of an accident but the complainant had

(3)

refused that and therefore, they have not committed any deficiency in service. On the contrary, it is the case of the complainant that he had made a claim for Rs.40,000.00 on the basis of the cost of repairs and replacement of parts but that amount has not been allowed by the OP.

So now it is to be seen as to whether the loss assessed by the Surveyor was correct or not. If so, its effect.

In this regard, it is argued by the ld. counsel for the appellant that the Surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.14,665.00 and therefore, the ld. Forum erred in awarding Rs.20,386.60 without any rationale. There is no dispute that the Surveyor was appointed by the appellant/ OP for making survey of the loss that may have occasioned to the complainant in consequence of the accident to his vehicle. Admittedly, the Surveyor Shri S.K. Gossain has assessed the loss. However, it is borne out from the record and also from the arguments advanced by the ld. counsel for the appellant that Rs.20,386.00 was mentioned as loss occurring to the complainant by the Surveyor and it is argued by the ld. counsel for the appellant that the amount of Rs.14,665.00 was arrived at to be offered to the complainant on the basis of sub-standard mode of calculation as there was minor violation of the policy condition.

It has been argued that the minor violation of the policy condition was that the complainant had removed the truck in question from the spot and that the

(4)

information to the Insurance Company was given after 7 days but we do not find these conditions as material for reducing the loss that was occasioned to the complainant. It appears that, the Surveyor despite assessing the loss of Rs.20,386.00, the Company offered the amount of Rs.14,665.00 only without any justification and therefore, the complainant was justified in refuting the offer of the Insurance Company. So the appellant/OP had committed deficiency in service in not making payment of the amount of loss as assessed by the Surveyor and therefore, the ld. Forum has rightly concluded the deficiency in service and has passed the impugned order correctly. We do not find any scope to interfere into it. The appeal deserves to be dismissed.

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed. 

Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

         (Vijai Varma)                          (Raj Kamal Gupta)

    Presiding Member                                Member

Jafri PA-II

Court No.2

t'>Court No.3

an>(Vijai Varma)                    (Raj Kamal Gupta)

            Presiding Member                           Member

Jafri PA II

Court No.2