Per Mr.B.A.Shaikh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 11.2.2008 passed by District Forum, Nanded in C.C.No.177/2006.
2. The case of complainant in brief is that when he was driving his four wheeler namely tempo from Loha-Malakoli towards Namarwadi carrying grocery articles, the said vehicle met with an accident due to bursting of front tyre and therefore it turned turtle and failed into road side ditch. It was badly damaged. Therefore complainant sustained loss of Rs.1,50,000/-. The said tempo was insured with original opponent. Accident took place during the period of validity of insurance. Therefore complainant submitted the claim supported by receipts of the expenses incurred by him for it`s repairing. The said claim was repudiated by the opponent on the ground that complainant committed breach of condition of the policy. Complainant committed no such breach of policy. Therefore he claimed compensation Rs.1,50,000/- with interest from the opponent Insurance Company.
3. Opponent filed it`s written version and resisted the claim. It is contended that the insured vehicle was carrying five passengers in contravention of policy condition and therefore it has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. It also contended that the claim is excessive and it is based on false and manipulated documents. It therefore submitted that the claim petition may be dismissed.
4. District Forum below after giving opportunity of adducing evidence to both the parties and hearing their advocates came to the conclusion that complainant is entitled to recover the compensation of Rs.76,452/- with interest and he is also entitled for compensation of Rs.1000/- towards mental harassment from opponent. Accordingly, it directed the opponent to pay the same.
5. We have heard both the parties and perused the papers placed before us. It is not disputed that the vehicle namely tempo owned by complainant i.e. respondent herein was insured with the appellant and it met with an accident during the period of validity of the insurance policy. The surveyor appointed by appellant had inspected that vehicle and he assessed the loss sustained by complainant to the extent of Rs.6615/- only. However the claim is repudiated on the ground of breach of policy condition.
6. Advocate of the appellant submitted that the said breach of policy is proved from FIR lodged with the police. He has also taken us through the surveyor`s report in support of his submission that the said surveyor has rightly assessed the loss sustained by the complainant to the extent of Rs.6615/-. It is thus contended that District Forum below has not considered the said material evidence in right prospectives and therefore erroneously granted the compensation to the complainant and hence the appeal may be allowed and complaint may be dismissed.
7. On the other hand, advocate of original complainant i.e. respondent herein supported the impugned judgment and order. He contended that surveyor`s report has been rightly disbelieved by the District Forum below and breach of condition is also not proved.
8. So far as the contention about breach of condition is concern we find that there is no cogent evidence to prove the same. FIR was not lodged by the complainant. Moreover accident did not take place due to carrying of fare paid passengers by the said vehicle. Admittedly, accident took place due to bursting of front tyre of the vehicle. Therefore we hold that the repudiation of the insurance claim made by original complainant is not proper and legal.
9. The perusal of the surveyor`s report shows that the surveyor has not given reasons about deduction made by him in the amount of bills submitted by original complainant. He has not considered the amount of Rs.66,500/- of the bills submitted by the complainant on the ground that they are not as per the spot report. In our view in the absence of specific reasons in the survey report it cannot be said that the said report of surveyor about assessment of loss of Rs.6615/- only towards the bill of more than Rs.1,50,000/- submitted by the complainant along with the claim showing that he incurred expenses of more than Rs.1,50,000/- for repairing of that vehicle. When it was damaged after falling in to road side ditch of ten feet in depth. District Forum below rightly discarded two bills for Rs.74,150/- and Rs.8980/- on the ground that they are not signed by the person who issued them. District Forum below has rightly considered the remaining two bills which are for Rs.1,06,630/- dated 25.09.2005 and Rs.11,650/- dated 25.09.2009. It deducted Rs.30,000/- from both of these bills Rs.1,18,280/- and on making deduction balance amount came to be Rs.88,280/-. The District Forum has rightly deducted 10% depreciation of Rs.18,000/- from Rs.88,280/-. On making that deduction balance amount came to be Rs.79,452/-. The District Forum has also thereafter rightly deducted Rs.3000/- towards salvage from Rs.79,452/- and the balance amount came to be Rs.76,452/-. The District Forum accordingly granted said compensation of Rs.76,452/- with appropriate interest to the complainant. Granting of compensation of Rs.1000/- towards mental agony is also just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
10. We find no reason to interfere the aforesaid findings arrived at by District Forum while partly granting the complaint under impugned judgment and order. Therefore appeal deserves to be dismissed. We pass the following order.
O R D E R
1. Appeal is dismissed.
2. Both the parties shall bear their own cost.
3. Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.
Pronounced on 14/09/2012.
