FA. No.103/2008 against CC.No.1/2007 District Consumer Forum, Adilabad.

Between:

National Insurance Company Limited,

Ambedkar Chowk,

Adilabad.

…Appellant/Complainant.

And

Sanjay Mahajan, S/o.late Dr.Manohar Mahajan,

Aged about 40 years,

Occ: Business, R/o.Ashok Road,

Adilabad.

…Respondent/Opp.Party.

Counsel for the Appellant           : Mr.R.Briz Mohan Singh.

Counsel for the Respondent       : Mr.Satish Deshpande.

QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER.

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY,

TWO THOUSAND TEN.

Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President)

*******

1.         This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party Insurance Company  against the order of the District Forum directing it to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that his vehicle Toyota Qualis was insured with the appellant Insurance Company covering the period from 19.08.2005 to 18.08.2006.  While so, on 12.12.2005 it met with an accident for which he submitted claim.  On that a surveyor was appointed.  He got his vehicle repaired by spending an amount of Rs.1,57,245/-.  The appellant had unilaterally settled the claim on 4.7.2006 at Rs.42,312/- without verification and therefore, he sought Rs.1,57,245/- towards damages.

3.         The Insurance Company resisted the case.  While admitting the issuance of policy and the accident, however it alleged that one Mr. K.Vasu was appointed to conduct spot survey, who submitted his report dt. 26.12.2005.  Again an independent surveyor, Mr. S. Daljit Singh, was appointed who on survey estimated the loss at Rs.44,902/-, vide report dated 10.03.2006.  Meanwhile, the repairs were effected.  After repairs the third surveyor Srinivas Ede was appointed who inspected the vehicle and submitted his report dated 17.3.2006.  On perusal of these three survey reports, it has arrived at Rs.42,312/- which the complainant was entitled to on production of vouchers.  Since the vouchers were not produced, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.         The complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got the documents marked as Exs.A.1 to A.4, while the opposite party filed its affidavit evidence and got the documents marked as Exs.B.1 to B.12.

5.         The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant could be able to prove that he had incurred an expenditure of Rs.80,000/- towards the damage caused to the vehicle, and therefore directed the same to be paid with interest at 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.

6.         Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party, the Insurance Company preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in its correct perspective.  It ought to have seen that the surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs.44,902/- and therefore, the said amount could have been awarded in stead of awarding Rs.80,000/- without any evidence. 

7.         The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of facts?

8.         It is an undisputed fact that the appellant Insurance Company insured the vehicle of the complainant covering the period from  19.08.2005 to 18.08.2006.  It is also not in dispute that the vehicle met with an accident on 12.12.2005.  A surveyor by name K Vasu was initially appointed to note down the damages.  The report of the surveyor was not filed.  Later it appointed another surveyor by name Daljit Singh, who after verifying the damages that were caused to the vehicle and the amount that was spent towards repairs assessed at Rs.44,902/- as against the claim of the complainant at Rs1,57,245/-.   One year thereafter, the Insurance Company sought for clarification from the very surveyor under Ex.B.12 dated 20.03.2007.  Exactly one year after obviously at the instance of the Insurance Company to slash down payment of amount, he started questioning the bills that were filed alleging that they were not true.  A contrary report was made vide Ex.B.12 stating that

            “all the parts used for repair are locally fabricated parts or parts purchased form second hand market.  These parts are available at the 1/3^rd price of a original dealers price.  Parts purchases from local market are not guaranteed for the quality, strength of material and safety, hence there is a difference in the cost.  It may be noted that the rates of parts given in the bill are more than the dealer’s rate.” 

We may state herein that he did not mention the difference between the market price and dealer’s price.  Having not satisfied even with this report, the Insurance Company appointed another surveyor by name Ede Srinivas, who in turn after survey gave a report dated 17.03.2006, vide Ex.B.2 mentioning that the complainant had carried out the repairs in accordance with the final survey  report made by Sri S.Daljeet Singh.  We may state herein that the Supreme Court (vide Sri Venkateswara Syndicate Vs. Oriental Insurance Company II (2010) CPJ 1 (SC) time and again deprecated the practice of appointing surveyor after surveyor till a survey report comes to their satisfaction.  Obviously when Daljeet Singh, second surveyor, has given estimate they never objected that the repairs were done by an unauthorized mechanic and therefore he would not be entitled to the amount.  He also did not point out that unless the spare parts are purchased from authorized dealer, the amount would not be paid.  Obviously, when the report issued under Ex.B.1 is not to its liking the Insurance company, after one year, sought for clarification.  Obviously at its dictation, the surveyor after finding out that repairs were not done at authorized mechanic or dealer stated that the parts were not authorized one.  This is really unfortunate.  There is no basis for the Insurance Company to slash down the estimated amount that has been spent towards repairs, etc.  In fact the District Forum awarded Rs.80,000/- though the complainant could prove that he has almost spent Rs.1,57,245/-.  However, as there is no cross Appeal by the complainant we do not intend to modify the order of the District Forum. 

9.         The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the bills were fabricated and therefore, they were not entitled to the amount .  It is not known how the Insurance Company can come to such a conclusion without examining the mechanic whatsoever to establish that the complainant has purchased spare parts in the second hand market.  As we have already pointed out it has become routine practice to the Insurance Company to repudiate the claim on one ground or the other without any basis.  The Insurance Company ought not to have resorted to this unfair trade practice.    We do not see any merits in the appeal. 

10.       In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/-            

       PRESIDENT

MEMBER

Dt:27.07.2010.

Vvr.