Per – Hon’ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member
Adv. Rahul Gandhi is present on behalf of the Appellant. Adv. Nikhil Mehta is present on behalf of the Respondent.
[2] This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 15/03/2010, passed by the Pune District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (‘Forum’ in short), in Consumer Complaint No.176 of 2008, Shri Nanasaheb Pandurang Nanaware Vs. ICICI Lombard General Motor Insurance. Undisputed facts are that a vehicle, namely – a goods truck, bearing Registration No.MH-12-EF-0259 was insured with the Respondent/original Opponent (hereinafter referred to as ‘the insurance company’). Said insured vehicle met with an accident on 11/12/2007 and the insurance claim was lodged pertaining to sum of `1,50,000/- towards repairs. The insurance company assessed the loss at `16,454/- and accordingly, paid that amount to the original Complainant. Not satisfied with this amount, a consumer complaint was filed claiming an amount of `1,50,000/- towards repairs, `30,000/- as compensation for mental torture and `10,000/- as costs. The District Forum found no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company and dismissed the consumer complaint. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the Appellant/original Complainant.
[3] The appeal was admitted and heard forthwith with the consent of the parties.
[4] Undisputedly, the insurance company assessed the loss at `16,454/- based upon the surveyors report and after taking into consideration the depreciation value of the damaged parts and paid that amount to the Appellant/original Complainant. The Appellant/ Complainant has received that amount from the insurance company. After considering the material placed on the record which was tendered in evidence, the District Forum came to a conclusion that the Complainant miserably failed to establish his loss as claimed and thus, further came to a conclusion that no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company was established.
[5] Mere assessment of loss by way of estimate for repairs before they were carried out or merely producing certain bills of repairs is not one and the same thing as tendering such documents in evidence as per Section-13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore, observations made by the District Forum in respect of evidence tendered on assessment of the material placed on the record cannot be faulted with. We find that appeal is devoid of substance and it deserves to be dismissed.
Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
The appeal stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Pronounced and dictated on 9th August, 2011