Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
This appeal has been filed by org. opponent/Insurance Company against the judgement and award passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ratnagiri in consumer complaint No.69/2002 decided on 15/07/2004. By the judgement and award passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ratnagiri, Insurance Company has been directed to pay the complainant a sum of `1,31,000/- with interest @ 7% p.a. from 03/10/2002 and also directed to pay `2,000/- towards cost of the proceeding. Aggrieved by this order, org. opponent/Insurance Company has filed this appeal.
2. The complainant-Mrs.Kalpana Chandrakant Bhise owned a vehicle. It was insured with the opponent/Insurance Company for a period 06/09/2000 to 05/09/2001. Said vehicle met with an accident on 07/01/2001. Intimation was given to the Insurance Company by the Fax. Surveyor made spot survey and thereafter, estimate of repairs was given by Bafna Motors. In the meantime, there was negotiation between parties. Thereafter, complainant lodged claim with the Insurance Company. After discussion, the Insurance Company agreed to accept claim on “Net Loss Basis” as per Surveyor’s recommendation and because of this assurance, complainant sold the vehicle to third party. When he approached the Insurance Company for settlement of claim, the Insurance Company insisted that complainant should bring repair bills because they would decide the insurance claim on “Repair Basis”, but since the complainant had already sold the vehicle, it was not possible for her to produce repair bills. Therefore, complainant again insisted that she should be paid compensation on Net Loss Basis, but it was not accepted by opponent/Insurance Company and therefore, complainant filed consumer complaint.
3. Opponent filed written version and contested the matter. According to the opponent, initially after accident the vehicle was inspected by Mr.U.K. Ramesh, who made spot survey and thereafter, Mr.Satoskar was appointed as Surveyor and lastly, Surveyor Mr.Pandit made re-inspection and Insurance Company was prepared to pay the claim as per the Surveyor’s recommendations, but since the complainant had not produced repair bills, they had closed the insurance file of the complainant informing the same to the complainant accordingly. The Insurance Company’s contention was that before selling the vehicle, the complainant had not informed them and now the complainant was claiming her insurance claim to be settled on Net Loss Basis.
4. Considering the rival contentions made by the parties and on perusal of affidavits and documents and Survey Reports, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum held that the opponent/Insurance Company had agreed to settle the claim on Net Loss Basis, which is clear from the letter complainant sent on 17/04/2001 to the Insurance Company. In this letter, the complainant had told that on Repair Basis, the Surveyor recommended `1,70,000/- and on Net Loss Basis, Surveyor recommended the amount of `1,31,000/- and she had told the Insurance Company which she mentioned in the letter dated 17/04/2001 that she had agreed to take claim under Net Loss Basis and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum noted finding that the insured had sold the vehicle before settlement of claim and the Insurance Company changed their stand and stated that they were going to give compensation on Repair Basis, but since the complainant had sold the vehicle without their knowledge, the complainant should be paid compensation on Net Loss Basis. What is pertinent to note is the fact that as per Surveyor’s recommendation, compensation on Repair Basis was `1,70,000/- and on Net Loss Basis it was `1,31,000/-. So, even in the interest of Insurance Company, the settlement of claim on Net Loss Basis should have been profitable and proper because under Repair Basis, Insurance Company was required to pay `1,70,000/- and on Net Loss Basis, Insurance Company would have to pay to the complainant `1,31,000/-. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of `1,31,000/- towards insurance claim lodged by the complainant with interest @ 7% p.a. and also awarded cost of `2,000/- to the complainant payable by opponent/Insurance Company. Aggrieved by this order, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal.
5. We heard Mr.R.P. Bafna, Advocate for the appellant/Insurance Company and Mr.Harihar Bhave, Advocate for the respondent/org. complainant.
6. We are finding that the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ratnagiri in consumer complaint filed by respondent is just and proper and it is sustainable in law. After Surveyor submitted his report, there were two options to the appellant/Insurance Company either to pay `1,70,000/- on Repair Basis or to pay `1,31,000/- on Net Loss Basis. It was profitable for the Insurance Company to pay to the complainant/respondent the amount of `1,31,000/- on Net Loss Basis than to pay `1,70,000/- on Repair Basis. So, this was negotiated and complainant agreed to take insurance claim on Net Loss Basis. She accordingly sent a letter dated 17/04/2001, but before that she had sold the vehicle to third party. The Insurance Company on seeing that the insured had sold the vehicle, insisted the complainant to produce repair bills paid to the Bafna Motors, so that they would settle the claim on Repair Basis, which was impossible for the complainant to do and so, there was impasse between the insured and the insurer and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum rightly solved the problem by directing the appellant/Insurance Company to pay a sum of `1,31,000/- on Net Loss Basis as recommended by the Surveyor. We are finding that the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in the circumstances is quite perfect and does not call for any interference by this Commission exercising appellate jurisdiction. Hence, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 29th November 2011.
