(Pronounced on 25.07.2012)
Per Mr N Arumugam, Hon’ble Member
This is an appeal filed by the org. o.p. against the judgement & order dtd.05.10.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in consumer complaint No. CC/08/741, partly allowing the complaint, directing the o.p. to pay Rs.1,68,460/- alongwith 12% interest and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of complaint to the o.p.
Brief facts of the case are as under:-
1. Org. complainant took insurance policy bearing No.1705372334100846 from the o.p – Insurance Co. for his truck. The policy was valid for the period from 30.11.2007 to 29.11.2008. On 09.08.2008 at around 10.00 a.m. on the Highway in between Saoner & Padhurna the said insured truck got damaged due to the dash to the roadside tree in safeguarding the motorcyclist. Said accident was reported to nearby Police Station at Kelwad. Accordingly, the Police prepared Spot Panchanama. The complainant also informed the o.p. – Insurance Co. about the accident. Accordingly, o.p. appointed surveyor – Mr Sachine Taley, who visited the spot, conducted survey and advised the complainant to get the vehicle repaired. Accordingly, complainant repaired the vehicle and incurred expenses of Rs.1,73,160/-. Thereafter, complainant submitted his insurance claim to the o.p. – Insurance Co. alongwith all requisite documents. However, o.p. allowed the insurance claim to the tune of Rs.11,000/- as per the surveyor’s report. However, complainant received the said claim amount under protest and filed consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur.
2. In response to the notice of Forum, o.p. – Insurance Co. denied the claim vide its Written Version, contending inter alia, that as per the surveyor’s report the insurance claim was settled, which was admissible and payable as per policy and further denied all the allegations made by the complainant and prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.
3. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of record of case, the Forum partly allowed the complaint as stated above, holding deficiency in service on the part of o.p. – Insurance Co.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order o.p. – Insurance Co. has preferred the present appeal.
5. Adv. Mr C B Pande for the appellant and Adv. Mr K Mandal for the respondent appeared.
6. Adv. Mr C B Pande for the appellant contended that the said insured truck met with an accident and Police from Kelwad Police Station visited the spot and conduct Panchanama; however, respondent failed to submit FIR and also failed to substantiate the fact of accident. It is also contended that the respondent lodged the claim without requisite documents. It is further contended by Adv. Mr Pande that the after receipt of surveyor’s report assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.11,570/-, appellant settled the claim which is admissible and permissible under the policy after verifying actual damages caused in the accident. In fact the repair bills of excessive amount produced by the respondent are not of authorized repairer, so also, the bills produced of spares parts, which are damaged due to normal wear & tear and not due accident. Therefore, it is submitted by Adv. Mr Pande that the claim is rightly settled to the tune of Rs.11,570/- and on this count, the appellant cannot be called deficient in rendering the service. Adv. Mr Pande further argued that the Forum without analyzing all these facts, awarded amount of Rs.1,68,460 with interest is illegal. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned order or alternatively, modify it to the extent of Rs.11,570/- as assessed by the surveyor.
7. Per contra Adv. Mr K Mandal for the respondent argued that the insured truck met with an accident and it was reported to the police so also to the appellant - Insurance Co. Police of Kelwad Police Station came and conducted Spot Panchanama. Appellant - Insurance Co. appointed surveyor for assessment of damage caused to the insured truck. However, surveyor without verifying all the facts, he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.11,570/-. Adv. Mr Mandal further contended that as per the advise of surveyor of appellant complainant brought the said truck to Nagpur and got it repaired and accordingly, the bills to the tune of Rs.1,73,160/- were submitted to the appellant alongwith insurance claim. The Forum, after hearing both the sides and scrutinizing the record, rightly awarded claim and cost. Hence, it needs to be maintained.
8. We heard both the sides and perused all the documents on record.
9. It is not disputed that the truck of respondent was insured with the appellant and it met with accident near Saoner and at the time of accident the policy was in force. The dispute in this matter is :- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of appellant – Insurance Co in as much as settling the insurance claim.
10. As far as the contention of respondent that as per the advice of surveyor of appellant, he brought the accidented truck to Nagpur, is concerned, respondent did not establish his contention by adducing any cogent evidence. Moreover, without getting any consent from the appellant – Insurance Co. respondent himself brought the truck to Nagpur and got it repaired. However, the Forum, failed to consider this fact while passing the order, which cannot be sustainable.
11. We observed from the record that the respondent repaired the accidented truck from Kartik Body Works, Kamptee Road, Nagpur, however, respondent submitted total 13 bills of 8 different work shops, which create doubt. However, Forum did not consider this fact and wrongly allowed the complaint.
11. We also observed that the respondent submitted the repair bills to the tune of Rs.1,73,160/-. In those bills there are some bills of spare parts, replaced while repairing the truck. However, it was not established by the respondent that all the replaced spares parts were got damaged in the accident. In fact, as per surveyor’s report, those spares were damaged due to normal wear & tear and not due accident. Hence, the Insurance Co. has rightly restricted the insurance claim to the tune of Rs.11,570/- and paid the said amount to the respondent. However, Forum did not consider this aspect and allowed the expenditure, holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of appellant, which cannot be sustainable.
12. For the above said reasons, the impugned order passed by the Forum deserves to be set aside.
Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed.
ii. Impugned order dtd. 05.10.2009 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur is set aside. Consequently, the Consumer Complaint No.CC/08/741 is rejected.
iii. Parties to bear their own cost.
iv. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties.
