NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4421/2009

BHIM MAHARAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. RAJESH KUMAR BHAWNANI

29 Jan 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 4421 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 20/08/2009 in Appeal No. 433 & 459/2007 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)
1. BHIM MAHARAJR/o Patrapali (Jindal), Post-Patrapali, Thana-Katora Road, Raigarh, Teh. & Distt.Raigarh,(C.G.) ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. Divisional Office, Korba,Korba,(C.G.)2. BRANCH MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,Branch Office, Sattiguri Chowk,Raigarh,(C.G.) ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 29 Jan 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, on admission. Factual backgrounds are that petitioner’s insured truck met with an accident and suffered extensive damages. A claim was lodged with respondent-Insurance Company whereupon a Surveyor came to be appointed, who assessed loss of Rs.2,97,00/-. The Insurance Company, however, repudiated claim of petitioner, holding that petitioner had failed to make available documents to Surveyor during inspection. Resultantly, a consumer complaint came to be filed with District Forum, which on consideration of rival contentions raised, awarded compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- payable by Insurance Company. Appeals were preferred against aforesaid finding of District Forum both by petitioner and Insurance Company. The grievance of petitioner before State Commission was that assessment of loss made by Surveyor was much less than estimate of repair costs made by authorised service centre of Tata Motors. State Commission, however, on consideration of finding of Surveyor, reduced compensation to Rs.3,07,858.60p and accordingly modified award of District Forum. No revision has, however, been filed by Insurance Company against modified award of State Commission and petitioner is in revision for enhancement of compensation and for restoration of order of District Forum. Having gone through finding of State Commission, we find that State Commission on consideration of report of Surveyor has taken notice of issues involved and finding so recorded by State Commission does not require any interference. Revision petition, in the circumstances, is dismissed with no order as to cost.