Haryana

StateCommission

A/975/2015

AMARJEET SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.RANA

01 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :     975 of 2015

Date of Institution:     09.11.2015

Date of Decision :      01.12.2015

 

Amarjeet Singh s/o Sh. Hukam Singh, Resident of Village Madina, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

 

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Office IInd Floor, HDFC Bank near D. Park, Delhi Road, Rohtak.

                                      Respondent/Opposite Party

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

Present:               Shri M.S. Rana, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

The substantially successful complainant has come up in appeal against the order dated June 25^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘the District Forum’) for enhancement of compensation.  

2.      Amarjeet Singh-complainant/appellant, got his truck bearing registration No.HR-46B-7622, insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party for Rs.18,04,985/-. During the intervening night of January 31^st/February 1^st, 2008, the truck met with an accident in the area of Shahajahanpur, District Alwar and was damaged. F.I.R. No.15 (Exhibit P-11) was lodged in Police Station Shahajahanpur on February 2^nd, 2008. Intimation was given to the Insurance Company. The surveyor of the Insurance Company assessed the total loss at Rs.8,06,602/- and after deducting 5% salvage value, it was of Rs.7,66,272/-. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated on the ground that the complainant had not furnished the required documents, that is, driving licence etcetera.  Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

3.      The Insurance Company contested complaint by filing reply reiterating the facts stated above and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      After evaluating the pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on the record, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.7,66,272/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint, that is, May 7^th, 2010 till its realization and Rs.2500/- litigation expenses.

5.      In the present case, the best piece of evidence is the report of the surveyor. The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.7,66,272/- vide report Exhibit R-5.  

6.       Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.  Vs. Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. & Ors., (2000) 10 SCC 19, held that surveyor’s report is an important document and non-consideration of this important document results in serious miscarriage of justice.  

7.      In D.N.Badoni Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd, 1 (2012) CPJ 272 (NC), Hon’ble National Commission held that Surveyor’s report has significant evidentiary value unless, it is proved otherwise.

8.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and Another, (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 507, held as under:-

“There is no disputing the fact that the surveyor/ surveyors are appointed by the insurance company under the provisions of the 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”.

9       In this case the complainant has failed to produce any evidence contrary to the report (Exhibit R-5) of the surveyor and therefore due weightage has to be given to it.   

10.    Taking into account the facts of the case and the evidence available on the record, this Commission is of the view that the amount awarded to the complainant is just, reasonable and there is no scope for enhancement.

11.    Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

 

Announced 01.12.2015

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL