Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 28.10.2010 passed by the Panjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in first appeal No. 997 of 2005. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against an order dated 2.6.2005 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib in complaint No. 176 . By the said order, the District Forum had allowed the complaint and directed the insurance company to make the payment of Rs.2,20,000/- with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization besides a sum of Rs.2,000/- as costs for mental agony and harassment and Rs.500/- as cost of litigation. The State Commission on consideration of the matter affirmed the finding of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. We have heard Mr. Neeraj Sachdeva, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. S. Sethi, learned counsel for the respondents and have considered their respective submissions. -3- In this case, limited notice was issued to the respondent-complainant in regard to the quantification of the insurance claim for compensation awarded by the fora below as it was pointed out that though the Surveyor had assessed the net adjusted loss at Rs.90,107/- but going by the plea of the complainant, the fora below had allowed the claim to the extent of Rs.2,20,000/-. The consumer dispute raised before the District Consumer Forum related to the non-settlement of the insurance claim in respect of a motor vehicle/tanker which met with an accident during the currency of the insurance and the claim was repudiated on the ground that at the relevant time of the accident, the vehicle in question was not being driven by the driver holding the valid driving licence but was being driven by the cleaner. The complaint was also resisted on the same ground. However, going by the evidence and material produced on record, the District Forum held that it was not proved that the vehicle was being driven by Paramjeet Singh, cleaner of the vehicle and not by Ranjeeta, the driver of the vehicle. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the report of the Surveror, M/s B. S. Kohli, who after taking into account all the relevant factors and extent of damage to the vehicle, its various components and the cost of its replacement, the age of the parts required to be replaced and the labour charges etc. which was required to be reinstated in the vehicle, assessed the loss at Rs.90,107/-. Both the fora below have not given any cogent reason discarding this report and for what reasons, choose to allow the claim at Rs.2,20,000/- as claimed by the complainant. In our view, once the independent Surveyor and Loss Assessor has assessed the loss and damage to the insured vehicle, unless any serious challenge is made to such a report, the report must form just and proper basis for deciding the insurance claim. We are, therefore, of the opinion that at best the complainant was entitled to a sum of Rs.90,107/- with some interest for the delay in making the payment of the said amount. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed and the impugned order of the fora below shall stand modified to the extent that the petitioner-insurance company is called upon to pay a sum of Rs.90.107/- with interest @9% per annum w.e.f. the date of three months after the date of peril till its payment. The complainant shall also get the cost which are quantified at Rs.5000/-. -5- The revision petition stands disposed of in these terms. |
