Haryana

StateCommission

A/1119/2015

KULDEEP - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

R.S.HOODA

10 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    1119 of 2015

Date of Institution:      24.12.2015

Date of Decision :       10.05.2016

 

Kuldeep s/o Sh. Ram Narain, Resident of V.P.O. Gopalpur, Tehsil Kharkhoda, District Sonipat.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Plot No.2, First Floor, F-Tower, DLF Building, IT Park, Chandigarh through its Manager-Incharge.

2.      Naveen Goel, Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Office at 2^nd Floor, SCO 400 to 402, HDFC Building Model Town, Rohtak.

3.      Parvesh s/o Sh. Prem Singh, Prop. Mayank Suraksha Point, near Jai Narain Dharamshala, Delhi Road, Kharkhoda, District Sonipat.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

 

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

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

 

Present:               None for appellant.

Shri Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2.

None for respondent No.3.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

Case called several times since morning but none has appeared on behalf of the appellant. On the last date of hearing also, that is, March 15^th, 2016, the position was the same. The record has been perused and it is proposed to decide the appeal on merits in absence of the appellant.       

2.      The substantially successful complainant has filed the instant appeal against the order dated November 23^rd, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) for enhancement of compensation.  

3.      Car bearing registration No.HR-79-2489 owned by Kuldeep-complainant/appellant, was insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties for the period April 17^th, 2014 to April 16^th, 2015 vide Insurance Policy Exhibit C-2. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the car was Rs.5,75,000/-.  On September 25^th, 2014, the car met with an accident and was damaged. First Information Report (Exhibit C-16) was lodged in Police Station Kharkhoda, District Sonipat. The Insurance Company was informed. The surveyor of the Insurance Company inspected the car and assessed the loss at Rs.1,41,540/-, vide report Exhibit R-4. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but it did not pay the amount.  Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

4.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.1,41,540/-, that is, the amount assessed by the surveyor to the complainant within 45 days from the date of the order, failing which the amount shall be paid alongwith interest 9% per annum from the date of passing of the order till its realization.

5.      By filing this appeal the only prayer made is to enhance the compensation awarded to the complainant.

6.      The best piece of evidence is the report of the surveyor. The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.1,41,540/-  vide report Exhibit R-4.

7.       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.  

8.      In Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and Another, (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 507, Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 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.

10.    It is the case of the complainant that his car was totally damaged and thus claimed compensation of Rs.5,75,000/-, that is, the IDV of the car. In support, he has relied upon the bills (Exhibits C-4 to C-10) issued by Luxmi Motors, Maruti, Hyundai Service Station, Main Road, Village Pipli, Tehsil Kharkhoda, District Sonipat. 

11.    A perusal of the bills (Exhibit C-4 to C-10) shows that these are neither signed by the authorised signatory of the service station nor the customer. So, these documents are nothing but simple papers and the same cannot be taken into consideration.  Thus, the complainant has failed to prove that he suffered loss worth Rs.5,75,000/- and in view of this due weightage has to be given to the report of the surveyor.  

12.    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.

13.    Hence, the appeal fails. It is dismissed.

 

Announced: 10.05.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL