Heard learned counsel for both the sides.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. As it appears from the pleadings of both the parties that the complainant had purchased policy from the Op for his vehicle bearing Regd.No.OR-05L-6663 covering the period from 23.07.2010 to 22.07.2011. It is alleged by the complainant that the vehicle met accident on 08.01.2011. After the accident, the matter was reported to the police and the insurer but the insurer did not make survey although the complainant alleged to have repaired the vehicle. Thereafter, the complainant requested the OP for settlement of his claim but it was in vain. Therefore, the complaint was filed.
4. The OP filed written version stating after getting claim the surveyor did not supply the compliance report. Moreover they have submitted that the driver is not authorized to drive the vehicle with proper driving license. It is averred that the driver is not authorized to drive hazardous goods vehicle like oil tanker as required under the provision of M.V.Act,1988. The complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
Basing on all these facts observed above, we hereby made liable to the OP for his deficiency in service for settlement of the claim of the complainant. Hence, we direct the Op to pay Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakhs) only towards the damage claim of the accident vehicle of the complainant alongwith compensation of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand)only towards mental agony and harassment within two months from the date of receipt of this order,failing which interest @ 8 % per annum shall be chargeable over and above all the ordered amount from the date of filing i.e. 22.12.2011 of this case till realization.
Close the case accordingly on part merit of the complaint petition.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version filed by the Op with proper perspectives. According to him, learned District Forum has computed the loss at Rs.3,00,000/- without any basis as the complainant has not proved any money receipt. Further he submitted that the surveyor has not computed the loss although it is settled principle of law that the surveyor’s report is the basis for computation of loss. So, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that they have already furnished all the documents except the money receipt and money receipt is required by the surveyor. So, he supports the impugned order.
8. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties, perused the DFR and impugned order.
9. It is admitted fact that during currency of the policy the vehicle met accident and the surveyor was deputed. But it is not in dispute that the surveyor has submitted a report. The only plea taken by the appellant that the driver has no valid driving license. On verification of the driving license and the certificate, it appears that driver has driving license and has undergone training required to drive hazardous goods vehicle under provision to 14(2) of M.V.Act,1988. Therefore, the repudiation on this ground is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Apart from this, report of the surveyor but it has not made any sort of assessment of the loss. Be that as it may, we are of the view that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP for not settling the claim with good gesture. However, computation of loss is not equally accepted being no money receipt filed. While confirming the impugned order, we hereby modify the impugned order by directing the OP to settle the claim of the complainant on production of required money receipt by the insurer within a period of 45 days from the date of order and in the event of computation of loss, same would be payable within a period of seven days thereafter. Rest of the impugned order will remain unaltered.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No cost.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
