JUDGMENT 8.11.2010 Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. This appeal by complainant for enhancement is directed against the order dated 15.12.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh whereby his complaint bearing No.1238/2009 was allowed with costs of Rs.5500/- and Insurance company- respondent No.2 was directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,55,736/- besides compensation of Rs.10,000/-. The abovementioned amounts were ordered to be paid within thirty days of the receipt of copy of the order, failing which Insurance company was made liable to pay penal interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 31.8.2009 till actual realization. 2. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant got his Hyundai Accent car insured from OP-2 for a sum of Rs.3,49,999/-. The insurance policy was for the period 10.4.2009 to 9.4.2010. The said car during the currency period of the policy met with an accident on 25.8.2008 while coming back from Delhi and suffered extensive damage. The complainant informed the insurance company and towed the vehicle to the premises of OP-1 for repairs which prepared the estimate to the tune of Rs.1,92,603/-. OP-1 after assessing the loss informed the surveyor of OP-2 who after scrutinizing the quotation approved estimate of items from Sr.No.1 to 44 and disapproved the remaining items from Sr.No.45 to 55 endorsing that no repair was required on these parts . After finalization of approval of the estimated amount and completion of other formalities, OP-1 promised to deliver the car after repairs within 30 days from 26.8.2008 but it did not deliver the same. Ultimately vide letter dated 28.1.2009 OP No.1 informed the complainant that the car was ready and the same could be lifted after payment of Rs.2,60,909/- even though the estimated loss including damaged parts and labour was estimated to the maximum of Rs.1,92,603/-. He protested the demand of Rs.2,60,909/- but the vehicle was delivered on paying the invoice amount of Rs.2,60,909/-. Complainant then got issued legal notice to OPs calling upon them to reimburse the amount but to no effect. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum. 3. On the other hand, the case of OP NO.1 before the District Forum was that as per estimate dated 26.8.2008 the total amount was estimated for Rs.2,71,995/- (Rs.1,59,910 for parts and VAT as applicable plus Rs.73095+ ST on account of labour charges) which was followed by supplementary estimate dated 30.12.2008 for Rs.16,713/+ VAT and labour charges and the final bill was for Rs.2,60,909/- which was paid by the complainant. The repair of the vehicle took some time as the same involved major accidental repairs and certain spare parts had to be ordered from Chennai since they were not readily available. It was stated that no cashless facility was agreed upon in respect of claim of the complainant. OP No.1 was entitled to the full payment of the amount for which it had issued the bill and it was none of its concern as to whether the payment was to be made by the insurance company or the complainant. The invoice amount of Rs.2,60,909/- had been paid by the complainant. 4. The insurance company -OP-2 in its separate written reply before the District Forum took up the plea that the claim was subject to loss assessed by the surveyor and loss assessor. The policy taken by the complainant was not an absolute policy to cover all losses upto the limit of the policy and rather the payment of the claim was subject to verification of the loss by the surveyor and investigator appointed under the provisions of the Act. On receiving the information, Mr.Vinod Kumar Sharma was appointed as surveyor and Loss assessor on 28.8.2009 who assessed the loss at Rs.1,55,736/- vide his report dated 2.1.2009. Thereafter, the claim was examined by the divisional claim committee of the office of answering OP on 12.1.2009 and after due verification of the reports of the surveyor, the re-inspection report alongwith recommendations of technical department (motor), the claim was assessed at Rs.1,48,235/- and the cheque for the same was handed over to the complainant on 15.1.2009. It was pleaded that insurance company was not liable to make payment of claim over and above the loss assessed by the surveyor. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 5. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the counsel for parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. Still dissatisfied, complainant has come up in this appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The sole point of arguments raised on behalf of appellant/complainant is that the final bill for repairs was for Rs.2,60,909/- but the learned District Forum allowed only Rs.1,55,736/- and did not allow the compensation and costs adequately in view of the harassment suffered by the complainant at the hands of OPs. It was further submitted that the car is still not roadworthy after the repairs, so complainant was required to be paid the full claim amount. However, the learned counsel for insurance company has repelled these arguments. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that after receiving information about the accident, OP No.1- insurance company deputed surveyor Sh.Vinod Kumar Sharma who assessed the loss at Rs.1,55,736/-. Thereafter, Sh.R.P.Singh was appointed to re-inspect the vehicle. The surveyor disallowed certain parts as the same were found to be not repaired/replaced. There is a plethora of judgments wherein it has been held that the surveyor report cannot be brushed aside unless there are allegations of some ambiguity in the report. The learned District Forum has elaborately mentioned the detail of parts and the calculation of amount and rightly held that the amount assessed by the Surveyor was liable to be paid to the complainant. The complainant could not point out any defect or ambiguity in the report of surveyor annexure R-1. 8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the District Forum rightly allowed the amount to be reimbursed on the basis of surveyor report and granted compensation of Rs.10,000/- besides costs of Rs.5500/-. Thus, we find no justification for interfering in the impugned order. Accordingly appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | |
