STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No  :      183 of 2015

Date of Institution:      26.02.2015

Date of Decision :       05.05.2015

Mahipal Singh s/o Sh. Om Parkash, Resident of Village Akbarpur, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh (Haryana).

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      Shri Mohan Motors, Nizampur Road, Narnaul through authorized agent Incharge Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited.

2.      Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, E-8 EPIP RIICO Sitarpura, Jaipur (Rajasthan)-302022 through Manager authorized Signatory Company Majkoor.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Varun Gupta, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Umesh Kumar, Advocate for respondents.

                                                   O R D E R

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated December 11^th, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Narnaul, seeking a substantial enhancement of the relief granted.

2.      Mahipal Singh-complainant (appellant herein) got his                   car registration No.HR-35 F -8286 of Bolero SLX make, insured with Shriram General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘Insurance Company’) from February 2^nd, 2011 to February 1^st, 2012, vide Insurance Policy (Annexure C-1). The Insured Declared Value (for short ‘IDV’) of the car was Rs.6,11,800/­-.  On July 8^th, 2011 in the area of Police Station Kotputali, District Jaipur Rural, the car met with an accident and was damaged. F.I.R. No.483 (Annexure C-2) under Section 279,337 I.P.C. was registered in Police Station, Kutputali on the same day, that is, July 8^th, 2011. On being informed, the Insurance Company appointed Shri Sanjay Rustagi, Surveyor, who inspected the vehicle and prepared report (Annexure R-3) whereby he assessed the liability of the insurer of Rs.1.00 lac. The complainant claimed compensation but the insurer did not pay.

3.      He filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4.      District Forum vide impugned order allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company as under:-

“……..we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- plus interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment to the complainant and against opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 is directed to comply with this order within 45 days from the date of passing of this order.”

5.      The best piece of evidence was the report of the surveyor. The surveyor by report Annexure R-3 found the loss occurred to the complainant to the extent of Rs.1.00 lac. This document has been taken into consideration by the District Forum while awarding compensation.

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       In the case in hand the complainant has failed to produce any evidence contrary to the report of the surveyor (Annexure R-3), so due weightage has to be given to it.   

9.      Having taken into consideration 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.

10.    Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

CL