STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(R.B.T. No.509 of 2009 in Appeal No.193 of 2002)

                                                                   Date of Institution: 30.01.2002

                                                                   Date of Decision  : 06.10.2010.

1.                 National Insurance Company Ltd., having its registered office at 3, Middleton Street, Calcutta through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

2.                 The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Circular Road, Bhiwani.

……Appellants

V e r s u s

Shiv Charan Mittal, J.S. Jain Marg, Charkhi Dadri.

              ....Respondent.

BEFORE:            HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT.

                        MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                        SH. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:          Sh. D.K. Dogra, Advocate for the Appellants.

                    None for Respondent.

PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER.

1.                           This is OPs appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) against the order dated 28.12.2001, passed by Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (hereinafter to be referred as District Forum), allowing the OPs/appellants to pay the insurance amount of Rs.89,901.88 to the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date after 4 months of the date of accident till payment.  The OPs/appellants were also directed to pay costs of litigation of Rs.500/-.

2.                           Shiv Charan Mittal, complainant/respondent  was the owner of vehicle No.HR-47-2222 which was insured with the OPs/appellants for the period from 29.6.1995 to 28.6.1996. The vehicle met with an accident regarding which information was given to the OPs/appellants and they deputed a surveyor.  The complainant submitted estimated quotation amounting to Rs.3,48,382.10 for the repair of the vehicle and also sent requisite documents to them.  The vehicle was repaired and the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,76,581/- thereon.  When he did not receive the compensation, he sent a registered letter dated 5.3.1998 and then served a registered notice dated 10.4.1998 but to no effect.  He then filed the present complaint claiming the amount of Rs.1,76,581/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum and a compensation of Rs.3 lacs for mental agony, harassment and humiliation.

3.                           The claim was opposed by the OPs/appellants inter alia on the ground that on receipt of intimation about the accident, they appointed Sh. Pardip K. Gupta, surveyor and loss assessor, Bhiwani who submitted his report dated 12.6.1996, copy of which is Annexure A. Thereafter, Sh. K.R. Arora and Company were appointed for final survey and they submitted their detailed report dated 17.9.1996, copy of which is Annexure B.  During investigation it was found that two other passengers were traveling in the vehicle in contravention of the rules due to which the claim was repudiated.

4.                           After hearing the arguments of the ld. Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the complaint was allowed in terms as mentioned in the opening para vide order dated 28.12.2001 which has been challenged through this appeal. The appeal was initially filed before the Hon’ble Haryana` State Commission and was transferred to this Commission vide orders dated 9.9.2009 of the Hon’ble National Commission.

5.                           The complainant had also filed an appeal for enhancement of compensation which has since been dismissed vide order dated 18.8.2009.

6.                           We have heard the ld. Counsel for the appellants and have also perused the record. 

7.                           It is not disputed that Sh. K.R. Arora and Company was appointed as surveyor and they submitted their report dated 17.9.1996 (Annexure R-1). The loss was assessed at Rs.87,141.60 + Rs.2760.28 i.e. a total of Rs.89,901.88. The OPs, however, appointed another surveyor Sh. Pardeep K. Gupta who submitted the report alleging that items No.2,3,4,6 and 8 as mentioned in Annexure R-1 were not replaced and the same were rather repaired.  On that basis the compensation was brought  down to Rs.25,751/-.  This contention was not accepted by the ld. District Forum, rightly so, because when the report of K.R. Arora and Company had been received there appeared to be no justification to appoint another surveyor. No doubt a second surveyor could be appointed but as per the Insurance Act, there must be sufficient grounds to disagree with the findings of the surveyor.  The OPs/appellants have not explained the reasons as to why the report of K.R. Arora and Company was not acceptable to them and why Pardeep K. Gupta was appointed as surveyor. The ld. Counsel for the complainant/respondent has argued that the appointment of  Pardeep K. Gupta was made solely for the purpose of bringing down the amount of compensation payable to him, which had already been brought down from Rs.1,76,581/- to Rs.89,901.88. Since sufficient grounds have not been furnished by the OPs/appellants for the appointment of Pardeep K. Gupta, we are, therefore, of the opinion that the report submitted by him was rightly not accepted by the ld. District Forum.

8.                           The ld. Counsel for the appellants has also argued that there were two passengers traveling in the vehicle in violation of the Rules due to which the claim was repudiated by the appellant.  It is not the case of the OPs/appellants if the accident occurred due to those passengers.  In similar circumstances in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. G.J. Ashok-I(2009) CPJ 297 (NC) repudiation of claim on such grounds was not accepted.  The OPs/appellants were, therefore, not justified in repudiating the claim.

9.                           The ld. Counsel for the appellants has also argued that the interest has been allowed @ 12% per annum which is exorbitant and in these days interest is payable @ 8% or 9% per annum. We do not find any merit in this contention.  The accident had taken place in June 1996. A period of 15 years has passed and no payment of compensation has been made to the complainant so far.  The surveyor had submitted his report in September 1996 and when the payment was not made the complainant filed the present complaint in October 1998.  The impugned order was passed on 28.12.2001 when the rate of interest being awarded was not less than 12% in such cases.

10.                       In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-.

12.               Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

6^th October, 2010.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE PRITAM PAL]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

hg

STATE COMMISSION

(F.A. NO. 509 OF 2009)

Argued by:          Sh. D.K. Dogra, Advocate for the Appellant.

                    None for Respondent.

Dated the 6^th day of October, 2010.

ORDER

                    Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this appeal filed by the OPs has been dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-.

(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL)            (JUSTICE PRITAM PAL)     (NEENA SAHDHU)

                MEMBER                                      PRESIDENT                       MEMBER