Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
This appeal arises out of order dated 17/6/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.296/2006, Dr.Anshu Sanjay Sharma v/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd., passed by Additional Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. By an impugned order, the consumer complaint stood dismissed. However, it was directed to pay to the complainant an amount of `1,72,361/-, which was admitted claim by the Insurance company and deposited with the forum below. Feeling aggrieved by the said order this appeal is preferred by the original complainant.
It is the case of the complainant that her vehicle no.MH-02-NA-1995 was submerged in water due to extra ordinary floods dated 26th and 27th July 2005 and as a result of which the vehicle sustained damage including to its engine. Vehicle was repaired at Patel Auto incurring total expenditure of `4,50,000/-. It is the case of the complainant that those repairs were carried out on assurance from the surveyor -Mr.Piyush Lohar appointed by the Insurance company. However, when the claim was lodged with the respondent/org.O.P./Insurance company it only offered to pay an amount of `1,72,361/- towards the full and final settlement of the claim. Complainant did not agree to it and, filed this consumer complaint.
We heard Mr.S.B.Prabhawalkar-Advocate for the appellant and Mr.A.S.Vidyarthi-Advocate for the respondent. Perused the record.
It is not disputed that the vehicle in question was insured with the respondent/ Insurance company and the policy also covered loss of damage to the vehicle due to flood. The claim made is also not in dispute. However, according to Insurance company said event was not immediately notified to it and, further, it categorically denied that surveyor Mr.Lohar agreed to the repairs as alleged. According to Insurance company when the claim was investigated through its surveyor cum investigator Mr.Milan H.Patel, they found it an exaggerated claim. The bills submitted were also found to be not genuine and, therefore, as assessed by their surveyor, they offered the amount, supra, to settle the claim. The outcome of the investigation carried out by surveyor Mr.Milan H.Patel in his report summarized as under:-
“CONCLUSION :
On the basis of the details/information I could collect/gather during the course of my enquiry, it appears that the repairer has submitted inflated bill in their own stationery without any supporting cash memos. Moreover, even though they have produced a bill in the stationery of ‘Kirthi Enterprises’ for the half engine the same turned to be fictitious. So I am of the opinion that if the repairer is not in a position to produce the genuine purchase bill/cash memos, it may be inferred that the repairer has fitted a serviceable half engine, procured through their own source.”
Complainant except making statement about expenditure incurred by her for repairs, failed to substantiate her case about actual repairs and, particularly, to rebut the case advanced and established by the Insurance company based upon the investigation of their surveyor cum investigator, supra. Complainant Dr.Anshu Sharma also preferred not to file any affidavit on her own to substantiate her case. She solely relied upon the affidavit of Dr.Bishwandu Bardhan, her constituted attorney, whose affidavit dated 9/12/2006 is filed by way of an evidence. Probative value of the said affidavit can be well questioned since he is not the one, who has personal knowledge of the facts alleged by the complainant. Said affidavit is also not properly verified though such verification issue can be for the time being kept aside looking to the Bombay practice.
Respondent/Insurance company relied upon the affidavit of their General Manager Mr.R.Suresh to substantiate their case and which finds corroboration from the documents produced on record.
Therefore, considering all these aspects, we find Insurance company was right in settling the claim to the extent which they find it genuine and could be admissible under the insurance policy. They have communicated their assessment and offered an amount of `1,72,361/- as per their letter dated Nil (Exhibit L) relied upon by the complainant herself. Letter of the Insurance company is dated 23/12/2005 (Exhibit M) wherein Insurance company has given particulars how they worked out the liability. To this letter complainant herself had replied on 28/12/2005 (Exhibit N) and rejoinder or reply to the said letter dated 03/1/2006 (Exhibit O) was sent by the Insurance company again sticking to their earlier offer.
Thus, we find that complainant miserably failed to establish that action of Insurance company to settle the claim at a particular amount which is less than her claim, was arbitrary or erroneous and, therefore, there is a deficiency in service on the part of Insurance company. Hence, we find the appeal devoid of any substance and, holding accordingly, pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal stands dismissed.
In the given circumstances both the parties to bear their own costs.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
