Haryana

StateCommission

A/967/2014

National Insurance Co. Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajbir Singh - Opp.Party(s)

20 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

Appeal No.967 of 2014

Date of the Institution:07.10.2014

Date of Decision: 20.10.2016

 

National Insurance Co. Ltd., %C/1 & 2 Neelam Chowk, Faridabad through its Branch Manager, now through its authorized signatory of Chandigarh Regional Office, SCO No.337-340, Sector-35/B, Chandigarh.

                                                                             .….Appellant

Versus

 

Rajbir Singh S/o H.No.2426, Sector-9, Faridabad.

                                                                             .….Respondent

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

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.R.C. Gupta, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

Mr.Sikandar Bakshi, Advocate counsel for the  respondent.

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1.      National Insurance Company Ltd. OP is in appeal against the Order dated 05.09.2014 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby the complaint of Rajbir Singh owner of Maruti Esteem Car has been allowed directing the OP to pay Rs.1,95,000/- insured value alongwith interest @9% p.a., Rs.5,000/- as mental agony and Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses.

2.      Briefly stated, the complainant got insured Maruti Esteem Car No.HR-51-L-0383 for a period from 06.02.2011 to 05.02.2012 by paying Rs.6657/- as premium covering all the risks of accident and theft etc. The vehicle met with an accident on 17.08.2011 at 8.00 A.M near BPTP Chowk, bye-pass road, near Agri Machinary Escorts Plant Faridabad. The complainant immediately informed the OP and their surveyor  inspected the spot on 17.08.2011 and FIR No.228 under Section 279/337 was registered on the same day. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal, Surveyor deputed by the insurance company assessed the damage and had gave the estimate at Rs.3,08,047/-. He further reported that the vehicle was not repairable and it will not be in a good running condition, hence, it was a case of total loss. The complainant lodged the claim with the OP for insured value of Rs.1,95,000/- on total loss basis and requested to release the payment of said amount repeatedly. But neither the respondent settled the claim of the complainant nor released the payment. Thereupon, complainant sent the legal notice, but the OP did not respond. Aggrieved against this, the complainant approached the District Forum to direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- alongwith interest @24% p.a. from the date of accident and Rs.50,000/- for causing mental tension, harassment and agony along with Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses.

3.      Contesting the complaint, the OPs pleaded that immediately on the intimation of accident, they deputed a surveyor, who assessed the loss of about 75% of the IDV. Mr. Mukesh Kumar  Aggarwal, Surveyor later gave the Motor Final Survey report on 10.01.2012 and their observation was, that the insured’s vehicle was damaged at left and right front side. Thus, the claim settlement was recommended as per above assessment and as per terms and conditions of the policy. The surveyor Mukesh Kumar had given the estimate of damaged vehicle, net assessed loss of total amount of Rs.180484.70/-.

4.      Against this Order of the learned District Forum, the OP has filed Appeal before us contending that the learned District Forum has accepted the complaint without any legal justification. The appellant reiterating the submissions made by it before the District Forum has stressed that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and claim was rightly repudiated.

5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

6.      A perusal of the record clearly shows that the vehicle had been insured with the OP and the accident took place during the subsistence of the insurance Policy. Moreover, the vehicle was badly damaged in the accident, which was inspected and total loss was assessed by the Surveyor as Rs.1,80,484.70/-. The law stands settled on the subject that the assessment made by the Surveyor has to be honoured and accepted by the Civil Courts and Tribunals under the Consumers jurisdiction. Therefore, we have no hesitation in modifying the award passed by the learned District Forum by reducing the amount of compensation from Rs.1,95,000/- to Rs.1,80,484.70 as assessed by the Surveyor of the Company. Accordingly the appeal stands partly allowed with no order as to costs.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

October 20th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

R.K.