Haryana

StateCommission

A/649/2016

BHARTI AXA GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJBIR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

INDERJIT SINGH

19 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :     649 of 2016

Date of Institution:     15.07.2016

Date of Decision :      19.10.2016

1.     Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited, Mercantile House, 7^th Floor, 15, Merchantile House, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi.

2.     Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited, Head Office First Floor, The Rerns, Survey No.28, Doddanekundi, Bangalore-560037.

         Both through its Ms. Shivali Sharma, Senior Executive-Legal Claims available at Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited, Mercantile House, 7^th Floor, 15, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties No.1 & 3

Versus

1.      Rajbir Singh s/o Sh. Sher Singh, Resident of Yakubpur, Tehsil and District Jhajjar, Haryana.

Respondent-complainant

2.      Agent Surender Singh s/o Sh. Hari Singh, Resident of Dadri Toye Tehsil and District Jhajjar.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party No.2

3.      Palm Ford Agency, Jind Road, Rohtak through Manager.

Respondent No.4/Opposite Party No.4

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

 

Argued by:          Shri Inderjit Singh, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri R.S. Sangwan, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                             Respondents No.2 and 3 – performa. 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties No.1 and 3, are in appeal against the order dated May 19^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Rajbir Singh-complainant/respondent No.1, seeking compensation with respect to his insured vehicle, was accepted directing the Insurance Company as under:-

“….it is directed that the respondents Nos.1 & 3 shall make the payment of Rs.1,67,835/- to the complainant along with an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of loss/accident i.e. 13.9.2014 till realization of final payment to the complainant. The complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Nos.1 & 3. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.”    

2.                Undisputed facts of the present case are that Ford Fiesta Classic vehicle bearing registration No.HR-14J-3812, owned by the complainant-respondent No.1 was insured with the Insurance Company-appellants vide Insurance Cover Note
Exhibit P-2. It met with an accident and damaged. On being informed, the surveyor of the Insurance Company inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss at Rs.62,871/- vide report Annexure-A.  However, the complainant alleged to have spent Rs.1,67,835/- on the repair of his vehicle from Palm Ford-Opposite Party No.4 vide bill Exhibit P1.  Claim being filed, the Insurance Company did not pay any amount to the complainant. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

3.                The opposite parties contested complaint by filing written version and while denying complainant’s claim, prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                After hearing the parties and going through the case file, the District Forum allowed the complaint and granted relief to the complainant as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

5.                The solitary submission made on behalf of the appellants-Insurance Company was that the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.62,871/- whereas the District Forum awarded Rs.1,67,985/- without any cogent and convincing evidence. The report of the surveyor be treated as an important document unless and until it is proved otherwise.

6.                The contention raised is not tenable. Bill Exhibit P-1 produced by the complainant established that the amount of Rs.1,67,895/- was paid to Palm Ford for repair of the vehicle. On the other hand, the appellants-Insurance Company did not lead any evidence contrary to the above said document. Although assessment of loss by the surveyor is a pre-requisite for payment or settlement of claim but surveyor’s report is not the last and final word. It is not that sacrosanct that it cannot be departed from; it is not conclusive. The approved surveyor’s report may be basis or foundation for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured but surely such report is neither binding upon the insurer nor insured. Support to this view can be had from the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3253 of 202, New India Assurance Company Limited versus Pradeep Kumar, decided on 9^th April, 2009. 

7.                In view of the above, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the complainant was entitled to the amount spent by him on the repair of his vehicle, that is, Rs.1,67,895/-. Thus, no case for interference is made out.

8.                Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

9.                The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 19.10.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL