Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Aggrieved by/dissatisfied over allowing of the complaint case by the Ld. District Forum, this Appeal is moved by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the OPs.

Very briefly, case of the Complainant is that, in respect of the accidental damage to the insured vehicle, a claim was lodged with the OP Insurance Company.  However, as the OP Insurer offered a paltry amount as settlement sum, the complaint was filed.

Defending its case before the Ld. District Forum, it is stated by the OPs that the Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 5,500/- and on the basis of said assessment report, they forwarded the discharge voucher to the Complainant, who, however, refused to receive the said amount.

Decision with reasons

Ld. Advocates for the parties were heard in the matter and documents on record widely traversed through.

It appears that the complaint case was previously decided by the Ld. District Forum against which the Appellant moved an Appeal before this Commission.  After the case was remanded, the Ld. District Forum re-adjudicated the matter and allowed it against which the present Appeal is preferred.

Underlining the importance of survey report, it is averred by the Ld. Advocate of the Appellants that they are bound to act in accordance with the Survey Report and thus, by offering the value assessed by the Surveyor concerned, they committed no manner of deficiency, as alleged by the Respondent No. 1.

We too appreciate the importance of survey report.  Having said that, we cannot be oblivious of the settled position of law that the Survey Report is not sacrosanct.  If the same is beset with inherent flaws, or it is found that the same has been prepared with a prejudiced mind, the same should ideally find its place in the waste paper bin. 

On going through the Survey Report in question, we come across the following loopholes:

First, in order to keep at bay all potential dispute/misgiving surrounding the exact nature/extent of damage sustained by the insured vehicle, it is always desirable that a joint inspection report, containing details of the damaged parts/portions, is prepared in presence of the Insured and representative of the service centre and all concerned put their respective signatures on it.  It is indeed surprising that no such report was prepared by the Surveyor in this case. 

Such a report assumes significance in the present case given the fact that on one hand, the Surveyor earmarked only one parts that according to him sustained damage in the accident; and on the other, according to the Mechanical Testing Report dated 13-04-1997, prepared by one Sri Amalendu Bhattacharjee, Testing Mechanic, holder of Certificate No. 72/year 1974 from Refugi Rehabilitation Section for Un-employment Scheme, Govt. of West Bengal, several parts needed replacement. 

Merely because the Surveyor deputed by the Appellants was  a licenced Surveyor, that cannot be a cogent ground to completely discard the certificate of Sri Bhattacharjee, who appears to be an experienced and licenced mechanic. 

It appears that the Surveyor took several photographs during the course of inspection.  For the reasons best known to the Appellants, none of the same was exhibited before the Ld. District Forum to negate the findings of Sri Bhattacharuee.

Second, comparison of the Bill No. 2549 dated 06-09-1997, issued by Shyam Automobiles and the Survey report reveals that the Surveyor allowed a miniscule vis-à-vis the amount charged by the service centre as repairing charges without assigning any rationale in this regard.  Since the said bill was paid through cheque and the total amount at stake was not quite substantial and above all, there being nothing on record to show that it was an inflated bill, in our considered opinion, no aspersion should be cast upon the Respondent No. 1.  The Surveyor cannot arbitrarily fix any amount; every single penny deducted from the bill issued by the repairer must be accounted for assigning adequate reason behind doing so.

Third, although it is alleged by the Surveyor that he visited the place of the repairer four times with appointment with the Insured, but the latter did not turn up; at the concluding page of the Survey report, the Surveyor admitted that the extent of damage, due to accident, was examined, checked, scrutinized and discussed with the repairer in presence of the Insured.  Such double speak does raise eyebrows.

For all these reasons, we cannot accept the survey report.  In the same vain, taking due note of the abrupt failure of the Appellants to place on record tangible proof to justify settling the instant claim at Rs. 5,500/- only, we accord our stamp of approval to the impugned order.

The Appeal, thus, fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands dismissed on contest against the Respondent No. 1 with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-, being payable by the Appellants to the Respondent No. 1.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.

Let the LCR be sent back to the Ld. District Forum together with a copy of this order forthwith.