Haryana

StateCommission

A/275/2015

RAJESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

RAMENDER CHAUHAN

12 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.275 of 2015

Date of Institution: 24.03.2015

Date of Decision: 12.08.2016

 

Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Laxman Singh, r/o village Tigrana,Tehsil and Distt. Bhiwani.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

1.  The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Bhiwani through its Branch Manager.   

2.      Supreme Mobiles Ltd. 473-74 Auto Market, Hisar through its Manager.

…..Respondents

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                              Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

                                                                                                                   

Present:              Mr. Narender Kaajla, Advocate counsel for the   appellant.

Mr.D.C.Kumar, Advocate counsel for respondent No.1.

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sales Manager of respondent No.2.

                                                   O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

          As per complainant he got his vehicle bearing registration NO. HR 26 AD0782 insured with Opposite Party (O.P.)-respondent No.1 and policy was valid from 15.09.2009 to 14.09.2010.  On 27.12.2009 his vehicle met with an accident and he took the same to respondent NO.2 for the repairs.  Due to this accident he suffered loss to the tune of Rs.4,51,200/-, but, the surveyor assessed loss to the tune of Rs.1,49,049/- only.  He paid Rs.4,51,200/- for the repairs and be awarded the same besides compensation qua mental harassment etc.

2.      O.P. No.1 alleged that complainant did not submit all the relevant documents about repairs and replacement of parts despite request.  He also did not produce the vehicle for re-inspection after the repairs. Surveyor rightly assessed loss to the tune of Rs.1,49,049/-.    Complainant was not entitled for compensation as per estimate submitted by him.  Objections about accruing cause of action, maintainability of complaint, limitation, estopple etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      It was alleged by O.P.No.2 that surveyor and Deputy Manager did not agree for replacement of Body Shell which was damaged in the accident. It was  told by it that vehicle was totally damaged beyond repairs.  However he was not liable to pay compensation and complaint be dismissed qua it.

4.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Bhiwani (In short “District Forum”)  allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 12.02.2015 and directed as under:-

“1.     To pay Rs.1,49,049/-  along with interest @ 12% per  annum w.e.f. 26.04.2010 i.e. from the date of previous complaint till its final realization.

          2.      to pay Rs.2200/- as litigation charges.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant has preferred this appeal on the ground that learned District Forum did not appreciate the evidence available on the file properly and surveyor report was not proper

6.      Arguments heard. File perused.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant vehemently argued that compensation awarded by learned District Forum  was on lower side and it be enhanced equal to his claim.  As per  surveyor report Ex.R-6, actual loss was to the  tune of Rs.4,98,494/-, but, he recommended compensation to the tune of Rs.1,49,048.95 only. The deductions made by him were not proper. Report of surveyor is not sacrosanct and conclusive proof.  If it appears that the same is not reliable, consumer fora is not bound by the same.  As per evidence available on the file it is clear that he spent Rs.4,51,000/- on the repair of the vehicle, so he was entitled for the same.         In support of his arguments he placed reliance upon opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Pradeep Kumar 2010 (1) CLT 266, opinion of Hon’ble National Commission in Sumit Kumar Agarwal Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2012 (2) CPJ 73, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Giriraj Proteins 2012(4) CPJ 151 and Vijay Singh Tomar Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2013(4) CPJ 154. 

8.      However there is no dispute as far as opinion expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Commission in the aforesaid case laws is concerned, but, if we go through the evidence available on the file it is clear that complainant is not entitled for compensation beyond the loss assessed by surveyor.  The complainant has not produced any evidence of expert engineer to show that shell of the body was beyond repairs. The price of shell is shown as Rs.1,79,362/- in Ex.R-6. If this amount is deducted from the amount mentioned in Ex.R-6 then it will be clear that the loss assessed by surveyor is genuine.  In this report it is mentioned that there was some defect in the repair of the body shell and repaired was asked to remove the same.  It is no where proved by complainant that the said defects were not removed by the repairer. In this report it is  also mentioned that after repair complainant did not produce the vehicle for re-inspection. When the vehicle was not produced how it can be seen by surveyor whether defect is removed or not.  If a body shell  is repairable then it does not mean that the company should pay for the new one.  Had it been beyond repairs then it  would have been a different matter.  In report Ex.R-6 in a one column the estimated loss is shown and in the other column actual loss is shown.  For ready reference relevant portion is reproduced as under:-

“	Estimated	Assessed amount
Total Less Dep.@ 30%-FIBRE, 25%-METAL, 50%-RUBBER Total	427571  99577.00  61675.00  5637.00               24894.25  30837.50        0.00     74682.75  30837.50  5637.00  0.00
Total (Tax paid)		111157.25”

The deductions were made about depreciation keeping in view the instructions mentioned in private package policy inconsonance thereof so it cannot be presumed that depreciation is not proper.  Keeping in view all the facts and circumstance surveyor assessed the loss as under:-

“Summary of assessment:-

	Estimated (Amt. in Rs.)	Assessed (Amt. in Rs.)
Total Labour charges Total cost of parts	70923.00 427571.00	37391.70 111157.25
Total Add Towing Charges	498494.00	148548.95     1500.00
Total Less compulsory excess	498494.00	150048.95     1000.00
Total		149048.95”

As already discussed above, there is no discrepancy in the surveyor’s report and cannot be disbelieved. The learned District Forum rightly granted compensation as mentioned above. Impugned order dated 12.02.2015 is well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

August 12th, 2016       Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                              Judicial Member                                                         Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

S.K.