Per Shri Narendra Kawde, Hon’ble Member This appeal is directed against the order dated 23/08/1999 passed in consumer complaint No.49/1999 (Hitesh Keshavlal Ganatra V/s. The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd.) by District Forum, Akola. District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint of the present respondent/org. complainant and directed the appellant/New India Assurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’) to pay an amount of `3,995/- within period of one month from the date of receipt of the impugned order, failing which interest @ 18% p.a. till realization of payment was payable by the appellant/Insurance Company. Similarly, `250/- were directed to be paid as cost of litigation. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the appellant/Insurance Company filed this appeal in the year 1999. 2. The appellant/Insurance Company contended that compensation to the extent of `1,195/- as recommended by the authorized Surveyor was offered as settlement of the claim and voucher was also sent to the respondent/complainant. However, the complainant declined to accept the amount of claim offered on account of damage to the scooter and insisted to pay amount of `3,995/- as costs of repairs undertaken by him and also paid to the garage owner. Since, his claim was not tenable, the appellant/Insurance Company repudiated the insurance claim and therefore, the complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum which was allowed with directions, mentioned supra. 3. This is an old appeal filed in the year 1999 placed on Board from sine-die list for hearing and disposal. Notices were issued to the parties. At the time of hearing on 07/07/2011 Learned Advocate of the appellant was present. However, respondent or his Advocate remained absent. On the subsequent dates of hearing on 13/09/2011 and 05/07/2012 none of the parties were present. Therefore, case was reserved for orders on merit. 4. We have perused the record placed before us. The admitted facts on record are that the complainant/respondent subscribed to the insurance policy to extend cover of insurance to the scooter. During validity period of said insurance policy, scooter met with an accident. The complainant approached the garage, obtained estimate of repairs and since, Surveyor did not reach in time, he got the repair work done through Ravi Scooter & Motorcycle House by incurring expenditure of `3,995/-. The Surveyor assessed the damage to the scooter only after repair work was carried out and such damage was estimated to `1,195/-, which was not acceptable to the respondent/complainant. Since, expenditure actually incurred to the tune of `3,995/- was not reimbursed by the appellant/Insurance Company and the claim was repudiated, the complainant/respondent preferred the consumer complaint before the District Forum which came to be decided in his favour. 5. It is the contention of the appellant/Insurance Company that complainant did not agree with offer of `1,195/- as offered by them. Neither he himself nor his any employee consented to such an offer. Appellant/Insurance Company tried to establish the consent of the complainant/respondent having accepted that amount as insurance claim and also tried to establish that owner of the garage, namely, Shri Dilip Thakrar where the scooter was repaired also agreed to the expenditure of `1,195/- on account of repair work incurred by the respondent/complainant. However, garage owner Shri Dilip Thakrar denied all the contentions of the appellant/Insurance Company and filed affidavit in support of his denial. There is yet another affidavit on record filed by one Shri Mangesh Vishnupant Mankar, the authorized Surveyor stating that the amount of `1,195/- as incorporated in his survey report was payable and also accepted by the garage owner as expenditure incurred to that extent for repairs and in token of such an acceptance, said Shri Dilip Thakrar appended his signature. Both these statements filed on affidavit by the Surveyor and denial filed by the garage owner and the complainant/respondent by way of affidavit. These statements are oath to oath. In such circumstances benefits of such situation shall go in favour of consumer/complainant, whose affidavit which corroborated by the garage owner’s affidavit states that there was no such consent given by the complainant/respondent. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that appellant/Insurance Company has incurred deficiency of service in not settling the insurance claim. Hence, impugned order passed by the District Forum cannot be faulted with and we cannot take a different view than what has been taken by the District Forum. We do not find any merit in this appeal. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :- -: ORDER :- 1. Appeal stands dismissed. 2. In the given circumstances, no order as to costs. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. Pronounced Dated 26th July 2012. |
