Haryana

StateCommission

A/148/2016

SHOKAT ALI - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRIRAM GEN.INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

ADISH GUPTA

04 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      148 of 2016

Date of Institution:      16.02.2016

Date of Decision :       04.04.2016

 

Shokat Ali s/o Sh. Mohammad Umar, Resident of Village Dhauj, Tehsil and District Faridabad.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

 

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, situated at Neelam Bata Road, near Neelam Cinema, Faridabad through its Divisional Manager.

 

B.P.5, Krishna Tower, IInd Floor, Faridabad.

                                      Respondent/Opposite Party

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Adish Gupta, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This appeal has been filed by unsuccessful complainant to set aside the order dated December 15^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed.

2.      Shokat Ali-complainant/appellant, got his truck No.HR-38R-2989, insured with Shriram General Insurance Company (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party/respondent, for Rs.12,60,000/-.  On May 14^th, 2013, the truck was damaged in an accident. The complainant informed the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company appointed surveyor who inspected the damaged truck and assessed the loss at Rs.37,000/-. The amount was paid to the complainant through cheque. The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that he had paid Rs.1,72,440/- to Jain Auto Centre for repair of the truck. Thus, the complainant sought direction to the Insurance Company to pay the balance amount.

3.      The best piece of evidence is the report of the surveyor. The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.37,000/-.  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.  

4.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and Another, (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 507, 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”.

5       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.

6.      Having taken into consideration the facts of the case and the report of the surveyor, this Commission is of the view that the amount paid to the complainant is just, reasonable and there is no scope for further payment. No case for interference is made out.

7.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

 

Announced 04.04.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL