Haryana

StateCommission

A/516/2015

KASHMIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRI RAM GENERL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SAJJAN SINGH MALIK

02 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      516 of 2015

Date of Institution:      11.06.2015

Date of Decision :       02.12.2015

 

Kashmir Singh s/o Sh. Dalel Singh, Resident of Village Kiloi Khas, Tehsil and District Rohtak (Haryana).

Appellant/Complainant

Versus

 

1.      The General Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, A-10-14, Indira Place, Near Gaurav Tower, Jaipur at present E.8, EPIP, RIICO, Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2.      Adroait Technical Services Private Limited 508, 5^th Floor, Devika Tower, Chandan Nagar, Gaziabad, U.P. through its Director.

 

3.      Vidhya Insurance Hub, SCO-18, Ground Floor Ashoka Plaza, Rohtak, through authorized agents for Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited.

Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri S.S. Malik, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Vinod Kumar Arya, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated May 7^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘the District Forum’) for enhancement of compensation.

2.      Kashmir Singh-complainant/appellant purchased TATA Dumper bearing Registration No.HR-39B-0554 from Pawan Kumar. The vehicle was insured with Shriram General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company)-Opposite Parties/respondents, from October 29^th, 2011 to October 28^th, 2012, vide Insurance Policy (Exhibit C-2). The complainant informed the Insurance Company with respect to transfer of ownership alongwith copy of Registration Certificate Exhibit R-3 and applied for transfer of the Insurance Policy in his favour. The Insurance Company got the vehicle inspected from its agent on April 4^th, 2012 and also charged fee for incorporating complainant’s name in the policy. The vehicle met with an accident on April 9^th, 2012 and suffered damage. According to the complainant, the loss was to the extent of Rs.4,63,500/-. The complainant informed the Insurance Company. The surveyor was appointed who inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss worth Rs.17,020/-. However, the claim filed by the complainant was repudiated by the Insurance Company vide letter Exhibit R-6. He filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      The opposite parties contested complaint by filing reply raising plea that the complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle as the Insurance Policy continued in the name of previous owner Pawan Kumar.

4.      After evaluating the evidence of the parties, the District Forum accepted the complaint and issued direction to the Insurance Company as under:-

 “…..it is observed that opposite party No.1 shall pay the amount of Rs.17020/- (Rupees seventeen thousand twenty only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 27.08.2012 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2200/- (Rupees two thousand two hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the opposite party No.1 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.”

6.      The surveyor in his report Exhibit R-5 found the loss occurred to the complainant to the extent of Rs.17,020/-. The best piece of evidence was the report of the surveyor. This document has been taken into consideration by the District Forum while awarding compensation.

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

8.      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. 

9.      Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.660 of 2013, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ishwar Singh, decided on January 9^th, 2015, by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court  held as under:-

“16.   The State Commission in their order has also not given any cogent and convincing argument to support their contention that the report of the surveyor is contrary to the bills submitted by the complainant in support of his claim. In fact, a careful reading of the complaint as well as the survey report does not support the respondent’s claim that he suffered a loss of Rs.14 lakh.

17.    Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn our attention to the Apex Court Judgment in the case Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and Another – (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 507 wherein the Apex Court has 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”.

10     In the instant case the complainant has not led any cogent and convincing evidence contrary to the report of the surveyor and therefore he is not entitled for any compensation beyond the report of the surveyor.   

11.    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 and reasonable and there is no scope for enhancement.

12.    Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

 

 

Announced 02.12.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL