A. P. SAHI, J (PRESIDENT)

1.       The Petitioner was the owner of a truck bearing No. RJ-02-1809 that was insured with the Respondent Insurance Company. The vehicle was insured for the period 26.04.2011 to 25.04.2012. It had a fitness certificate that was valid till 13.05.2011 and in order to get it further extended the Complainant went to the District Transport Office on 20.03.2012 for obtaining clearance for future. The Transport Officials after inspecting the same got a fitness certificate fee of Rs.100/- deposited together with penalty of Rs.275/- and green tags of Rs.500/- and issued a receipt on 20.03.2012 itself at about 11.15 a.m. According to the Complainant the vehicle was therefore fit as per the Rules and had a fitness certificate.

2.       It is then alleged by the Complainant that the said vehicle was being driven between 1.00 p.m. and 1.30 p.m. on the same day by its Driver Mr. Sahabuddin when in between near the highway the truck met with an accident with a motorcycle. As a result of the said accident a huge mob gathered and set the truck to fire. FIR No. 166 of 2012 was registered and it was reported by a Cross FIR No. 167 of 2012 intimating the destruction of the entire truck.

3.       The Insurance Company was informed and the Surveyor immediately arrived and submitted his survey report but while analyzing he only indicated a damage assessed at Rs.2,81,055/- only.

4.       The claim form was submitted but the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on 29.06.2012 on the ground that the vehicle was not possessed of a Fitness Certificate. The repudiation letter dated 29.06.2012 is extracted herein under:                 

“Policy No.: V1193324

                             Claim No.: CV180083

                             Date of Loss: 20/03/2012

                   Dear Sir,

                    We refer to your intimation dated 22.03.2012, wherein you informed that subject vehicle met an accident. As you are aware we had appointed Mr. Mradul Khandelwal -9414017161 to inspect and assess the said loss. Based on his observation, report, claim form, policy term & condition, documents submitted by your good self and the facts available we have the following observation:

Photocopy of fitness certificate of insured vehicle bearing Sr. No.-1622986 submitted by your good self is found valid up to 13.05.2011. Hence, the said vehicle was plying on road without fitness at the material date and time of accident.

Also as per Section 56 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988:

“Subject to the provisions of sections 59 and 60, a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of section 39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness in such form containing such particulars and information as may be prescribed by the Central Government, issued by the prescribed authority, or by an authorised testing station mentioned in sub-section (2), to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder.” Thus your vehicle is also not validly registered at the time of accident.

Accordingly the captioned claim is closed as “No Claim” on grounds of violations of policy condition.

Thus we regret our inability to consider the said claim due to reasons as mentioned above.

We keep on record our sincere thanks for the co-operation extended to us & to the surveyor during the entire process.

We hope you would appreciate that payment of any claim has to be in accordance with the terms of the policy. Whilst we reject this claim with regret we reiterate our commitment to pay all admissible claims fairly and promptly.”

5.       Aggrieved the Complainant approached the District Commission where a response was filed to the Complaint. The District Commission allowed the Complaint to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- coupled with costs and damages for mental agony to the tune of Rs.5,000/- for being paid within time prescribed and in default the interests at the rate of 15% would be realizable.

6.       The Insurance Company went up in Appeal being First Appeal No. 1573 of 2012 which upheld the Order of the District Commission in allowing the claim but on quantum did not agree with the finding of total loss as recorded by the District Commission and revised the amount to the figure as indicated by the Surveyor in his report together with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the Complaint.

7.       The Insurance Company did not assail the aforesaid Order but the Complainant has come up contending that the quantum that has been reduced is based on an erroneous assumption inasmuch as the entire vehicle was lost and was completely burnt. The Surveyor Report does not depict the correct status of the loss hence any reliance based on it is unsustainable.

8.       Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has urged that even though the Insurance Company has not assailed the Impugned Order yet the quantum has been correctly assessed by the State Commission inasmuch as the loss which has been assessed item wise by the Surveyor has nowhere being disputed by the Complainant nor any challenge to the said assessment has been made on any cogent ground. Consequently the figure as depicted by the Surveyor and as accepted by the State Commission should not be interfered with.

9.       Having considered the submissions raised we find that the repudiation by the Insurance Company was rightly rejected by the District Commission inasmuch as on facts it is evident that the vehicle was possessed of a fitness certificate on the date when the accident occurred. The fitness stood renewed and was therefore valid on the date of the accident. This is evidenced by the receipt which has also accepted by the State Commission and the finding therefore on that issue stands confirmed by us.

10.     Coming to the issue of quantum, the Surveyor Report is accompanied by a list of assessment in the shape of a “Motor Survey Report Assessment” sheet quantifying the exact nature of the damage suffered and the replacements required to the tune of Rs.2,81,035/-. The Complainant came up with the case in the Complaint that the entire vehicle was lost and he claimed Rs.10,00,000/- as the insured amount and Rs.2,00,000/- as damages which facts were stated in the Complaint. In reply to the Complaint the Written Statement in Paragraph No. – 7 denied the averment of the total destruction of the vehicle. Paragraph No.-7 of the Written Statement is extracted herein under:

“7.     That para no. 7 of the complaint as averred is incorrect and denied. The averment of the complainant that his vehicle was completely destroyed is incorrect. Whereas no loss was caused to the vehicle of the complainant in this manner.”

11.     Not only this in the additional submissions made in Paragraph No.-2 the Insurance Company stated as follows:

“2.     That the entire vehicle of the complainant has not been destroyed whereas an independent and impartial surveyor made inspection of the vehicle of the complainant and the losses suffered were calculated as per which it is stated that there is a loss of only Rs.2,91,055/- to the vehicle of the complainant but the complainant has deliberately violated the terms of insurance and there the complainant is not entitled to any claim amount.”

12.     These two Paragraphs are categorical and have admittedly not been refuted or rebutted by any further affidavit by the Complainant. There is no challenge raised to the calculation sheet of the loss as depicted in the Surveyor Report. Consequently in our opinion the Surveyor Report cannot be ignored and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sri Venkateswara Syndicate versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Anr. reported in (2009) 8 SCC 507, the Surveyor Report deserves to be accepted as on the other hand it could not be successfully impeached by the Complainant.

13.     No other evidence has been led by the Complainant to establish the entire loss of the vehicle as against the report of the Surveyor.

14.     Learned Counsel for the Respondent has relied on the Order passed by this Commission in the case of IFFCO – TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited versus Beena Raghav in Revision Petition No. 3217 of 2014 decided on 27.02.2015. We entirely agree with the ratio of the said decision and we find that in the present case as well the Petitioner has insisted on the total insured value of the vehicle instead of questioning the correctness or otherwise of the Surveyor Report.

15.     In these circumstances we find no reason to interfere with the order of the State Commission impugned herein and the Revision Petition is dismissed affirming the same.