1.      This Revision Petition No. 1196 of 2021 challenges the order of  Odisha State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (‘State Commission’) dated 30.08.2019, vide which, the learned State Commission disposed of the Appeal No.49/2018 filed by the Insurance Company and the Appeal No.221/2018 filed by the Petitioner/Complainant by modifying the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Keonjhar (‘District Forum’) order dated 03.01.2018 in C.C. No.36/2016 and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.90,000/- to the insured towards settlement of the claim and affirming the rest part of the order of the District Forum.

2.      As per report of the Registry, there is 754 days delay in filing this Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in IA No.10785 of 2021, the Revision Petition is treated to have been filed within limitation.

3.  Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he purchased a Mahindra Scorpio vehicle insured with the OPs from 29.04.2013 to 28.04.2014. The vehicle met with an accident on 13.03.2014 during the subsistence of the policy. He informed the OPs about the accident, who deputed a surveyor to assess the loss. The surveyor conducted the assessment in his absence and the final survey was completed on 22.03.2014, and the claim was settled for Rs.1,80,000/, an amount the Complainant alleged to be arbitrary. He approached the Insurance Ombudsman, who observed that the claim form, signature, and consent submitted were fabricated. The Ombudsman ordered a reassessment, which the OPs failed to comply with. He sought direction to the OPs to settle the claim based on the Insured Declared Value (IDV), deducting the amount already paid, along with compensation and costs.

4.      The OPs contended that the Complainant received the amount as full and final settlement by executing a discharge voucher and asserted that his acceptance of the settlement amount precludes any further claims and therefore, pray for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      The District Forum, vide order dated 03.01.2018, allowed the complaint and directed the OP as under:

“The O.Ps. are hereby liable to pay a sum of (Rs.3,47,839 -Rs.1,80,000) i.e. Rs.1,67,839/- (one lakh sixty seven thousand eight hundred & thirty nine only) towards IDV value settlement & along with a sum of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand only) towards compensation inclusive of cost within 45 days of this order, failing @9% p.annum interest will accrue on same from the date of application till complete realization.”

6.      Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the OPs filed Appeal No.49/2018. The Complainant also filed Appeal No.221/2018. The learned State Commission vide order dated 30.08.2019 modified the District Forum order dated 03.01.2018 in CC No.36/2016 and OPs were directed to pay Rs.90,000/- to the insured towards settlement of the claim and affirmed the rest of the District Forum order as under:

 “7. We heard Mr. G. P. Dutta, learned counsel for appellants- Insurance Company in F.A. no.49 of 2018 and respondents in F.A. no. 221 of 2018. We also heard Mr. R. K. Pattanaik, learned counsel for respondent in F.A. no. 49 of 2018 and appellant in F.A. no.221 of 2018.  We also perused the impugned order along with District Forum record.

8. On thorough perusal of materials available on record it has come to light that Ombudsman had observed that settlement made by insurer on the basis of the report of the Loss Assessor suffers from many infirmities. Insurer was, therefore, directed to reassess the loss suffered by insured vehicle.

9. The matter was referred to the 'Technical Committee' (Motors) for their opinion on the assessment made by the final Survey Mr. S. K. Sadhu of Jamshedpur. The Committee arrived at the following conclusions:-

"We observed that the loss assessed by the final surveyor is not reasonable and on lower side in respect of assessment spare parts as well as labour charges. It is observed from the photographs taken by him that the body shell has sustained extensive damages to the various parts of it requiring complete replacement of the same. It is also evident from the photos that the chassis assy is also bent and misaligned and being a tubular chassis, it is not possible to repair it by cutting, welding and setting method and thus chassis also requires replacement as a whole. Therefore we have re-assessed the loss xxx xxx."

10. In view of the above the committee re-assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,70,000/-.

11.  Further, learned counsel for insured brought to our notice the circular of IRDA (Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India) which clearly states that insurers shall not use the instrument of discharge voucher as a means of estoppels against the aggrieved policy holders when such policy holder approaches judicial fora.

12. From the above observations, we are of considered opinion that Insurance Company is liable to pay insured as per the re-assessment. As Insurance Company has paid Rs.1,80,000/- to insured. Insurance Company is liable to pay as per re-assessment made by Technical Committee after deducting the amount paid, i.e. Rs.90,000/- (Rs.2,70,000 –Rs.1,80,000).

13. In view of the above, Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.90,000/- to the insured towards settlement of the claim. The impugned order is modified only to the extent of payment of loss to the insured and the rest part of the impugned order stands.

14. In the result, both the appeals are disposed of modifying the order dated 3.1.2018 passed by learned District Forum, Keonjhar in C. C. Case No. 36 of 2016.

 Records received from the District Forum be sent back forthwith.”

7.      Being dissatisfied by the Impugned Order dated 30.08.2019 passed by the learned State Commission, the Petitioner/ Complainant filed the instant Revision Petition No.1196 of 2021.

8.      It needs to be mentioned that no Revision Petition was filed by the Respondents/OPs against State Commission order of 30.08.2019

9.      In his arguments, the Counsel for the Petitioner/ Complainant reiterated the grounds in the Revision Petition and asserted that the insured amount (IDV) of the vehicle in question was Rs.3,47,839/-.  However, the Technical Committee reassessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,70,000/-. He therefore sought to balance claim of Rs.77,839/- which was short awarded by the State Commission along with interest, compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment as also Rs.2,50,000/- reimbursement of actual expenses.

10.    The learned Counsel for the Respondent/OP argued in favour of the impugned order passed by the State Commission. He further contended that as per report of the Technical Committee, the amount of Rs.2,70,000/- was given to the petitioner/Complainant. The petitioner has failed to give any cogent reason and evidence for diverting from the report of the Technical Committee and further has not adduced any cogent evidence as to any this report should not be relied upon. He sought to dismiss the present Revision Petition with costs. He relied upon Ahsamuddin and Anr. V. Heera Lal,  2023 SCC OnLine NCDRC 472 in support of his arguments.

11.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the orders of the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission and rendered due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both parties.

12.    Considering the fact that Respondents/OPs have not challenged the State Commission Order dated 30.08.2019, the same is final with respect to the said OPs.

13. The only remaining dispute is whether the State Commission rightly modified the order of the District Forum dated 03.01.2018 and directed the OP to pay Rs.90,000/- to the insured towards settlement of the claim and affirmed the rest of the order of the District Forum?    

14.    In this regard, it is an admitted position that the Technical Committee reassessed the loss to the vehicle in question to the tune of Rs.2,70,000/-.  It is also undisputed that the Petitioner/Complainant  failed to give any cogent reason and evidence for diverting from the report of the Technical Committee and further has not adduced any cogent evidence as to any this report should not be relied. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned State Commission has rightly modified the order of the District Forum dated 03.01.2018 and directed the Respondents/Insurance Company to pay Rs.90,000/- and not the IDV value of the vehicle in question. The detailed and well reasoned Order of the learned State Commission dated 30.08.2019 does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. In fact, the order is just and fair. Therefore, no intervention is warranted. The Revision Petition No. 1196 of 2021 is, therefore, dismissed.

15.    Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

16.    All pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.