- Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and Orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short, the District Forum) and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal, Panchkula, Haryana (for short, the State Commission), the Petitioner/Insurance Company – National Insurance Co. Ltd. filed Revision Petition No. 481 of 2017 under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the Act) against Mr. Rajbir Singh (for short, Respondent). The Complaint being Consumer Complaint No. 241/2012 before the District Forum was allowed. The relevant portion of the Order dated 05.09.2014 is reproduced as under:-
“12. As per copy of insurance policy Ex. C-1, the car in question was insured with the respondent insurance company at the time of accident for the amount of Rs. 1,95,000/-. The estimate of repaired Ex. C-7 is Rs. 308047/- (three lacs eight thousand forty seven). The respondent insurance company deputed a surveyor who assessed the loss of the car on repair Rs. 180484.70/- without any deduction. 13. During the course of arguments, both the counsel admitted that the vehicle was insured a sum amount of Rs. 1,95,000/- and vehicle was not running position after repair. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal, surveyor had given estimate of damaged vehicle for repair, net assesses loss Rs. 143865.10/- for allocation of parts and Rs. 36619.60/- is allocation of labour charges and total amount is RS. 1,80,484.70/- without any depreciation. There was no justification for deducting an amount of 25% towards insured value of Rs. 1,95,000/-. 14. The respondent is, therefore, directed to pay Rs.1,95,000/- (one lacs ninty five thousand only) to the complainant towards total loss to his car with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 05.06.2012, till the date of payment and further directed to pay Rs. 5000/- as mental agony and harassment alongwith Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses within 30 days to the complainant. A copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room. I am agreed with the conclusion.” - The Appeal filed by the Petitioner against the Order dated 05.09.2014 was partly allowed by the State Commission vide Order dated 20.10.2016 with observations as under:
“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.” - As the State Commission and District Forum have comprehensively addressed the facts of the case, I find it unnecessary to reiterate the same.
- Heard Learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.
- Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Respondent insured his Maruti Esteem Car with the Petitioner’s Insurance Company under Policy No. 361100/31/10/6100006644. The said Insurance Policy was valid from 06.02.2011 to 05.02.2012. The vehicle met with an accident on 17.08.2011 at BPTP Chowk Bypass Road, Near Agri Machinery Escorts Plant, Faridabad. The Insurance Company after the accident appointed a Surveyor who inspected the damaged vehicle on 25.08.2011, and submitted the final report on 10.01.2012, assessing the loss at Rs. 86,392.44/-. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the Petitioner is willing to pay the loss amount as assessed by the Surveyor, i.e., Rs. 86,392.44/-.
- Learned Counsel for the Respondent argued that this Commission had limited Revisional jurisdiction under the Act to interfere with the concurrent findings of the State Commission and the District Forum.
- Have also perused the record. The key question to be decided is what should be the appropriate claim amount to be settled by the Insurer. A perusal of the Order of the State Commission shows that it has wrongly observed the loss as assessed by the Surveyor to be Rs.1,80,484.70/-. I have gone through the Surveyor’s detailed assessment, wherein he had come to the conclusion that the net liability on repairing basis for the loss suffered by the Insured should be Rs.86,392.74/-. I do not see any reason why the Surveyor’s assessment on the loss should be doubted. In the circumstances of the case this is an amount which the Insurance Company is liable to pay to the Insured.
- In the case of Sri Venkateshwara Syndicate Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., decided on 24.8.2009, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under :
“22. Surveyors are appointed under the statutory provisions and they are the link between the insurer and the insured when the question of settlement of loss or damage arises. The report of the surveyor could become the basis for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured. There is no disputing the fact that the Surveyor/Surveyors are appointed by the insurance company under the provision of Insurance Act and their reports are to be given due importance and one should have sufficient grounds not to agree with the assessment made by them.” - In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed and the Order of the State Commission is partly upheld with modified directions as under:
The Insurance Company shall pay Rs.86,392.74/- to the Respondent, as assessed by the Surveyor, alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from one month after the date of submission of the Surveyor’s Report, which is 10.02.2012 till realisation within a period of six weeks of this Order, failing which, the rate of interest shall stand enhanced to 12% per annum for the same period. |
