Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
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. The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant being the owner of the vehicle bearing No.OD-09C-5227 has purchased a comprehensive policy from OP on payment of due premium for the period covering dtd.22.06.2016 to dtd.21.06.2017. It is alleged inter-alia that on 05.08.2016 there was an accident while the vehicle was returning from Badbil. Thereafter the matter was reported to the OP. On 09.01.2017 the OP informed that they have repudiated the claim due to non-cooperation of the insurer. Finding deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complaint was filed.
4. The OP filed written version stating that after receiving the claim intimation , they deputed the surveyor but the complainant did not file the documents. However, the surveyor computed the loss at Rs.3,09,000/-. It is averred that since no FIR or police paper is made available the OP did not settle the matter and repudiated the claim as no claim.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned
District Forum passed the following order:-
Xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx
- The OP No.2 and OP No.3 is hereby liable to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.3,09,000/- (Three lakh nine thousand only) on the basis of the report alongwith a sum of Rs.5,000/-(five thousand)only towards compensation, loss, harassment and mental agony sustained and also saddled with Rs.2,000/-(two thousand only) as cost within 30 days of this order, failing interest @ 9% per annum will accrue on same from the date of application till complete realization without fail.
- The above said amount be paid to the financier in proper & suitable intimation.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the fact and circumstances of this case. According to him the accident of vehicle being not reported immediately to the police, there is violation of the policy condition. Learned District Forum should have considered this aspect. He also submitted that learned District Forum has not considered the fact that the repairing the vehicle was not made although the estimate was prepared and surveyor’s report also shows that it was not dismantled. Therefore, the surveyor’s report should not the basis for computation of loss. He also submitted that when there is no claim of cash loss by the complainant, the question of applying the principle of payment of compensation on non-standard basis can be applied alternatively. In toto he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the surveyor has verified all the papers of the vehicle. He also submitted that the copy of the FIR was not made available to the informant as on good number of times requested for its. He also submitted that the loss computed by the surveyor should be the basis for settlement of the claim. Since, the impugned order has no defect, same should be confirmed.
8. Considered the submission of respective counsels for the parties, perused the DFR and impugned order.
9. It is for the complainant to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. It is admitted fact that during currency of the policy, the vehicle met accident and it was repaired in the garage. It is also not in dispute that surveyor was deputed and he made the computation of loss. The report of the surveyor is only disputed by the insurer on the ground that the surveyor has not assessed the vehicle given after repair. The surveyor has clearly mentioned in the report that he has verified the necessary documents except FIR and he has learnt from the complainant that he has lodged FIR but the copy of the FIR was not given to the police. So, it is not the case where police was not informed. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that due to lack of information to the police, the policy condition violated has no effect.
10. Further, it is found that the surveyor has computed loss before the vehicle is dismantled. So, the defects as has been noticed by the surveyor can be stated as correct assessment. Therefore, the computation of loss by surveyor should be basis for settlement of the claim. He quoted the loss at Rs.3,09.000/-. It is well settled in law that surveyor’s report is the basis for computation of loss unless same is found to capricious or deviation of norms. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the case should be treated cash loss. It is not the case of cash loss. Cash loss is only taken into consideration if there is policy condition violated or enumerated surveyor’s assessment is disputed and the complainant is unable to meet the expenditure made. Since, no such condition is here fulfilling, the argument on behalf of the appellant is untenable. The surveyor’s report in this case, since not disputed and no policy condition has been violated, this Commission is of the view that the impugned order bears no illegality.
Hence, the impugned order is confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed. 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.
