The facts in brief of this case are that the Complainant is a registered owner of Tata Motors Truck No. ML-10 8137 which was comprehensively insured with the OP, the New India Assurance Company Ltd, Shillong for a period commencing from 31.03.2007 to 30.03.2008 which was further renewed with effect from 04.04.2008 to 30.04.2009. On 06.07.2007, the truck met with an accident at Lumshnong village, Jaintia Hills District which was accordingly reported at Lumshnong Anti Dacoity Camp vide GDE No. 86 dated 06.07.2007. The truck was inspected on 09.07.2007 by the MVI Jaintia Hills District. Later the truck was towed to Nirmal Body Garage Workshop at Guwahati for repair, wherein as per the claimant, she paid an amount in excess of ` 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand only) as cost of repair and accordingly submited the bills to the OP to process the claim. The OP Insurance Company Ltd deputed the Surveyor for inspection and accordingly settled the claim for an amount of ` 43,290/- vide cheque No. 2328696 dated 04.03.2008. The Complainant found this claim to be too meagre and inadequate and received the same under protest on 16.05.2008 and issued a legal notice dated 04.06.2008 to the OP to settle her claim as per expenditure incurred by her. Thereafter the Insurance Company did not respond to the claim of the claimant, hence this case.
Notice was issued to the OP who filed the show cause on 03.11.2008. The OP maintained that it received the information about the accident on 18.07.2008 i.e., 12 days after the accident only when the vehicle was already towed to Guwahati for repair and accordingly the Insurance Company deputed the Surveyor to conduct the survey of the damaged truck at Guwahati. The Surveyor submitted the report on 03.08.2007 to the Insurance Company. The OP also maintained that the garage was not an authorised workshop of Tata Motors since the vehicle was under hypothecation of Tata Finance Ltd, one of the requirements was that in case of an accident, the vehicle should be repaired in the authorised workshop only. It further contended that the amount of ` 1,49,150/- which was contended by the Complainant as repair cost was only the estimate and is not an expenditure/bill of actual amount spent. Hence therefore the figures were grossly inflated and without any basis. The OP also mentioned that not being convinced on the estimate supplied by the Complainant, it appointed another Surveyor Shri B.K. Jain on 03.08.2007 to conduct editorial survey of the damage and accordingly the Surveyor in his report dated 29.09.2007 recommended a sum of ` 40,790/- on account of repairs and ` 2,500/- as towing charges which was subsequently paid to the Complainant. The OP also contended that the Complainant never submitted any bills to the OP on account of repair charges. The OP thus maintained that it disposed the claim of the Complainant in time and on the basis of report of the independent Surveyor and therefore there is no deficiency in service on its part.
Evidences were adduced by both the parties. The claimant examined 3 witnesses including her. CW.1 i.e. the Complainant in her deposition stated that she spent around ` 1,50,000/- on the repairs of the truck and submitted all the bills to the Insurance Company. She also mentioned that she had not seen the truck after the accident and her deposition is based on the documents placed before this Forum. She also mentioned that she was not aware whether the garage where the vehicle was repaired was not the authorised service centre of Tata Motors. She also mentioned that the bills submitted to the Insurance Company are mentioned at Annexure E of the Show cause of the OP which actually is the estimate showing the likely amount to be spent on repairs. She also mentioned that she is ignorant of any bills etc showing how much is actually spent on the repairs.
CW.2 Shri K.M. Pohshna deposed that the Complainant is his daughter and that he took the truck for repair to Guwahati. He also mentioned that his daughter spent around `1,50,000 for repair of the vehicle. In his cross examination, he mentioned that he is not aware whether Nirmal Auto Garage is the authorised service centre or not. Also he submitted that he do not remember whether in addition to the estimate there was any other documents from Nirmal Auto Garage submitted to the Insurance Company. He mentioned that he has already paid the amount to the garage but there was no cash receipt of the same. He maintained that the bills were submitted to the Insurance Company, however there is no documentary evidence to show submission of bills.
CW.3 Shri Nirmal Singh in his deposition mentioned that he is the Proprietor of the Garage and prepared the estimate in respect of repairing of the truck. He also mentioned that the spare parts estimation was done by him and the cost of repair was around ` 1, 50,000/- and issued a receipt of the same to the owner. In his cross examination, he mentioned that his garage is not a Tata Motors authorised garage. He also mentioned that the estimates prepared by his garage are not conclusive prove of actual expenditure of repairs. He admitted that he is not in a position to state the exact amount that was spent on repairing of the vehicle. He also mentioned that all the cash memos of the spare parts purchased by him were given to the CW.2 i.e the father of the Complainant. He however mentioned that the amount of ` 43,290/- as offered by the Insurance Company will not be sufficient for repairing of the vehicle.
The OP examined 2 witnesses. OPW.1 Shri M.C.Banks in his deposition mentioned that he is the Insurance Surveyor for almost 10 years and the license holder by IRDA in July 2007. He was appointed by the OP to conduct the survey in respect of accident involving truck of the claimant and accordingly he submitted a preliminary survey report dated 03.08.2007 to the OP since it was just a preliminary survey he did not specified the quantum of damaged suffered by the truck but only confirming the fact of damage of the truck. In his cross examination he submitted that he had surveyed the vehicle only externally and that the vehicle might have suffered more damage than reported by him. He mentioned that his report is not conclusive in so far as the cost, nature and extent of damage is concerned.
OPW.2 Shri Bimal Kumar Jain in his deposition mentioned that he is an A Class Surveyor for the last 25 years. After being appointed by the OP, he visited the garage at different stages i.e pre dismantling, post-dismantling and repairing stage. He also communicated with the Complainant to come forward with all the documents to settle the loss incurred but the Complainant did not respond and accordingly submitted his report to the Company fixing an amount of ` 40,790/- as damages and ` 2,500 as towing charges. In his cross examination, he maintained that his assessment would have remained the same even if the Complainant had appeared before him with all documents etc.
Both parties were heard and they have submitted their argument in writing also to this Forum. After perusal of all the materials and evidences on record and depositions made by the witnesses, the Forum makes the following observations:-
1. There is no dispute as to the fact of the accident and the insurance of the vehicle which met with an accident.
2. After submission of the claim, the OP did respond to the claim made and settled the claim for an amount of ` 43,290/-.
3. The claimant was not happy upon the amount settled by the OP and claimed that an amount of ` 1.50,000/- was spent by her on the repair of the truck.
4. The truck was repaired in a garage which was not the authorised garage for repair of trucks under hypothecation with Tata Finance Ltd, Mumbai.
5. There is nothing on record either by way of bills or by way of cash receipt which has been submitted by the claimant to substantiate her claim raised with the OP.
In light of the observations above, this Forum is of the opinion that this is a case of Complainant being aggrieved on the quantum of the claim settled by the OP and terming it as deficiency in service on the part of the OP. We have gone through the deposition of the Complainant witnesses very carefully. The claims made by the Complainant have not been substantiated with documentary proof. However, the claimant has referred this complaint mentioning deficiency in service on the part of the OP. We would like to mention the relevant dates here. The accident occurred on 06.07.2007 which was informed to the OP on 18.07.2007. The OP deputed the first Surveyor on 26.07.2007 who submitted his preliminary report on 03.08.2007. Thereafter, on 03.08.2007, the OP deputed another Surveyor who submitted his final report on 29.09.2007. Ultimately the OP settled the claim on 04.03.2008. It is pertinent to note here that the claim was settled on the basis of the report of an independent surveyor. The OP in their argument submitted the observations made by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 2008(2) CPR 46 which mentions “The Surveyors are independent assessor and the report has to be given due importance and weightage unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary”.
This Forum would not like to defer from the settled legal observation on this issue. The Complainant have not been able to substantiate their claim with any documentary proof and in absence of the same, we are of the opinion that the settlement made by the OP was just and based on the report of the independent surveyor. We therefore disposed off this case with no further relief to the Complainant.
Case disposed off.
