Haryana

StateCommission

A/480/2015

ABHEY SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

MUKESH YADAV

08 Apr 2016

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                               First Appeal No.480 of 2015   

                          Date of the Institution:26.05.2015

Date of Decision: 08.04.2016

 

Abhey  Singh son of Shri Gharsa Ram, Caste Ahir, resident of village Sihma, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh (Haryana).

 

                                                                             .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

1.      IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Company Limited through Manager Corporate Office, IFFCO House, 3^rd Floor, 34 Nehru Place, New Delhi.

2.      IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Company Limited through Sunil Kumar Agent Office Narnaul Road, Mahendergarh, Tehsil & District Mahendergarh.

                                                                             .….Respondents

CORAM:    Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Presiding Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.Mukesh Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.G.D.Gupta, Advocate for respondents.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

                   As per complainant his vehicle bearing registration No.HR66-7446 was insured by the respondents and policy was valid from 03.07.2011 to 02.07.2012. On 15.10.2011 at about 10/11 P.M.when vehicle was near village Khatripur, Blue Bull came in front of the same. When driver tried to save animal he lost control and vehicle hit a tree, due to which it was badly damaged. The matter was reported at Police Post Faizabad where report No.7 dated 16.10.2011 was registered. When information about incident was Opposite Parties (O.Ps) they asked to wait at the spot because Ravinder, Surveyor was coming to assess the loss, but, he did not came there. He brought his vehicle to Aman Motors, Nangal Sirohi for repairs. As per estimate, cost of repair was to the tune of Rs.2,16,760/-.  Actually, he has spent Rs.2,20,000/- thereupon including the transportation of vehicle etc. All  the bills and relevant documents were submitted with O.Ps., but, no compensation was awarded.

2.                Ops filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that dispute about quantum cannot be looked into by Consumer Fora and is to be adjudicated upon by Civil Court as opined by Hon’ble National Commission in Champalal Verma Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Limited 2008 (III) CPJ 93  (NC). He informed them after about four days of accident. Surveyor was appointed to look into the matter and he assessed loss to the tune of Rs.1,03,940/-. The complainant did not provide the documents despite several demands.  He did not spend Rs.2,20,000/- as alleged by him. Objections about concealment of facts and jurisdiction of Consumer Forum etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss complaint.             

3.                After hearing both parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (In short “District Forum”) partly allowed complaint vide impugned order dated 03.03.2015  and directed as under:-

“Taking into account every aspect of the case, we have found that the surveyor in his report dated 13.02.2012 Annexure R-5 has assessed the loss at Rs.1,03,940/-. Accordingly, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,03,940/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 05.11.2012 till the date of payment.”.

4.      Feeling aggrieved, therefrom, the complainant-(appellant) has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that as per Annexure C-8, it is clear that cost of repair was to the tune of
Rs.2,16,760/- besides transportation charges etc. This fact corroborates his version about expenditure to the tune of Rs.2,20,000/-, whereas learned District Forum has granted Rs.1,03,940/- which is on the lowerside.

7.      This argument is of no avail. The complainant has not produced any document on the basis of which it can be presumed that he spent Rs.,2,20,000/-. He has not produced any documents vide which items were purchased by him. It is also not mentioned in Annexure C-8 that from where articles were purchased. As per complainant it was only estimate. To prove actual cost, he should have produced the bills about purchase of items. In the absence of any cogent evidence it cannot be presumed that he has spent Rs.2,20,000/- as prayed by him. It is well settled preposition of law that report of Surveyor is having great evidentiary value and cannot be ignored without any cogent reason. Reference to this effect can be made to the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission in D.N.BADONI versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., I (2012) CPJ 272 (NC). Impugned order dated 03.03.2015  is well reasoned, based on law  and facts and it cannot be disturbed. Resultantly, appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed.

 

April 8th, 2016

Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.