Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1376/2016

Giriraj Singh Rathore s/o Sumer Singh Rathore - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Oil Corporation Through G.M. - Opp.Party(s)

Niranjan Sharama

26 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1376/2016

 

Girraj Singh Rathore s/o Sumer Singh Rathore r/o 1 Ka-2 Kamla Nehru Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.

Vs.

1. Indian Oil Corporation through Chief Manager, Office- 20 Dukan, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur.

2. Asal Durg Enterprises off- 203 Girnar, Gandhi Path, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.

3. The Oriental Insurance Co. through Br.Manager, Branch II, Kundan Bhawan, M.I.Road, Jaipur.

 

 

Date of Order 26.10.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr. Chandra Shekhar counsel for the appellant

Mr.Ravindra Mathur counsel for respondent no.1

2

 

None appeared for respondent no.2

Mr.Prashant Mantri counsel for respondent no.3

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed for enhancement of the compensation. The contention of the appellant is that house, car etc. are being damaged and architecture has assessed the damage as Rs. 8,61,803/- but the Forum below has allowed only a meagre amount. Hence, compensation should have been enhanced and further more the cylinder was having manufacturing defect hence, respondent no. 1 & 2 should also be held liable.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that as per surveyor report the claim is allowed and no ground for interference.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

3

 

There is no dispute about the fact that due to blast in the cylinder on 24.10.2011 house and goods were damaged and after relying on the assessment made by the surveyor the Forum below has allowed the compensation as Rs. 1,84,011/- alongwith interest, compensation and cost of proceedings.

 

The first contention of the appellant is that respondent no. 1 & 2 are also deficient as the cylinder was having manufacturing defect. Valve of the cylinder was not working properly but all these contentions are not been raised in the complaint. Per contra it has been stated in para no.3 of the complaint that at the time of delivery of the cylinder on 22.10.2011 cylinder was properly checked by the delivery man. Hence, the Forum below has rightly not held the respondent no. 1 & 2 responsible.

 

The other contention of the appellant is that he suffered a loss of Rs. 8,61,803/- for damage t the house and Ex. 6 estimate has been submitted. Per contra the insurance company has submitted the report of the surveyor.

 

Before the Forum below no objection has been raised as

4

 

regard to the surveyor report and law is very clear on the point that surveyor report should be given due importance and there must be sufficient ground not to agree with the assessment made by the surveyor but here in the present case the appellant has not shown any reason that whey surveyor report should not have been relied upon. Surveyor has noted the damages and further assessed the same.

 

The respondent has rightly relied upon (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 19 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Roshan Lal Oil Mills, IV (2013) CPJ 233 (NC) Dipali Das Vs. United India Insurance Co. , 2004 NCJ 529 (NC) National Insurance Co. Vs. Gurmit Singh, II (2009) CPJ 405 Vipin Ladha Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. , III (2010) CPJ 171 Gautam Chand Vs. United India Insurance Co. and judgment passed by this Commission in First Appeal No. 583/2016 Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Sh.Anand Koolwal where the consistent view is that the surveyor is independent person and its report will get preponderance over the private surveyor report.

 

The other contention of the appellant is that car was also

5

 

damaged and relied on the photograph of the car Ex. 19. The appellant has submitted estimate for building Anx. 6 and list of damaged goods as Anx. 7 but nothing has been submitted about damage to the car and even car was not put to survey. Further more for damage to the house Rs. 8,61,803/- and for household goods Rs. 1,42,000/- are been claimed but no such claim has been made for the loss of the car and the Forum below has rightly allowed the claim.

 

In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and stands rejected.

 

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm