BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.117 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.111 OF 2011 DISTRICT FORUM ADILABAD
Between:
1. The Oriental Insurance Co.,Ltd.,
D.No.3, No.7, Uttar Marg, Gandhi Salai
Divisional Office, Rosy Towers, 2nd Floor
No.7, Chennai-34
2. The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Nizamabad Appellants/Opposite parties
A N D
Sri P.Ashok Kumar S/o Nagaiah
Aged 45 years, Occ: Business
R/o H.No.15-2, Manaram (V)
Tandur (M), Mancherial, Adilabad
Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellants M/s Bhaskar Poluri
Counsel for the Respondents M/s V.Narasimha Rao
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE I/C PRESIDENT
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
THURSDAY THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble I/c President)
***
1. The opposite parties are the appellants. The averments of the complaint are that the respondent is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration NO.AP 01W 7614 which was insured with the appellant no.1 under policy NO.411300/31/2009/2671 valid from 27.06.2008 to 26.06.2009. On 18.02.2009 the vehicle of the respondent met with an accident and the same was informed to the appellants. The appellants deputed spot surveyor and surveyor after inspection assessed the damage and submitted his report to the appellants. The respondent had spent `3,49,640/- for the repairs of the vehicle. The respondent submitted claim form along with all necessary documents to the appellants. The appellants neither settled nor repudiated the claim. The respondent got issued notice on 3.10.2009 and filed the complaint before the District Forum.
2. The appellants remained exparte.
3. The respondent filed his affidavit and the documents, Exs.A1 to A27.
4. The District Forum allowed the complaint on the premise that the appellant insurance company was proceeded exparte and it had not chosen to deny the statement of the respondent that the accident had taken place and the vehicle was repaired.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the opposite party has filed appeal contending that the District Forum failed to consider that the respondent filed only photocopies of the documents and it had not considered the assessment of the loss or damage caused to the vehicle as made by the surveyor at `1,05,333/- mentioned in Ex.A22. It is contended that the District Forum failed to consider that the respondent had not produced trip sheet, road tax bills for the period covering the date of accident due to which the claim could not be settled by the appellant insurance company.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents filed their written arguments.
7. The point for consideration is whether there were any justifiable grounds for non-settlement of the claim?
8. The facts which are beyond any dispute are that the respondent is the owner of vehicle bearing registration NO.AP 01 W 6714 and the appellant insurance company had issued insurance policy in respect of the vehicle for the period covering from 27.6.2008 to 26.6.2009. It is not denied that the vehicle met with an accident on 18.2.2009 and on receipt of information of the accident the appellant insurance company got an on the spot investigation and also it had appointed surveyor B.Linga Reddy who inspected the vehicle and submitted his report on 13.4.2009 assessing the damage caused to the vehicle at `1,05,333/-.
9. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company is that the appellant could not settle the claim on account of failure of respondent to submit original trip sheet and original road tax bill for the purpose of verification. It is contended that the District Forum Nizamabad ought to have returned the complaint for want of jurisdiction or it ought to have dismissed the complaint as not maintainable.
10. Insofar as the objection relating to territorial jurisdiction of the Adilabad is concerned, the appellant insurance company failed to raise objection at the earliest point of time. It is settled law that the objection as to territorial jurisdiction of the complaint is to be raised at the earliest point of time. It is not the case of the appellant that no notice was served on it by the District Forum. The appellant has not chosen to raise the objection before the District Forum even after receiving the notice and it had consciously kept quite allowing the matter to be proceeded with by the District Forum Adilabad as such the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is held not sustainable.
11. The District Forum awarded an amount of `3,49,640/-. The appellant insurance company which appointed the surveyor could not contest the claim before the District Forum. The respondent brought on record the report of the surveyor under Ex.A22 wherein the surveyor has made detailed estimate of the loss or damage caused to the insured vehicle and arrived at conclusion that the loss caused to the vehicle was at `1,05,333/-. The surveyor in his report under the head ‘summary’ has deducted policy excess and salvage value etc and came to the conclusion that the loss to the vehicle would be of `1,05,333/-. The surveyor observed:
SUMMARY
Net cost of parts 59,633.06
Net labour charges 49,700.00
Towing charges 2,500.00
-------------
Less: Policy excess 111,833.00
Less: Salvage 1,500.00
---------------
105,333.00
-----------
Subject to Policy terms and conditions, it is recommended that the claim be settled for Rs.1,05,333.06, as shown above.
12. The surveyor’s report has to be given due importance and significance owing to the technical qualification of the surveyor and his being placed on the panel by the IRDA. Except in the circumstances showing the surveyor had deviated from the normal course and failed to observe the norms in assessing the loss caused to the insured vehicle, his report cannot be set aside.
13. There is no valid reason shown by the respondent to deviate from the assessment made by the surveyor. The surveyor’s report carries much importance and it was pointed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd” where the National Commission accepted the surveyor’s report, in the following words: surveyor’s report in III (2007) CPJ 3 (SC):
.
18. “The next question comes with regard to the quantum of compensation. In view of the fact that the reports of M/s. Apex Surveyors Pvt. Ltd as well as N.V.P. Sharma Associates Pvt. Ltd. were considered by the Commission for computing the quantum of compensation and on that basis the compensation has been granted by the Commission, that cannot be said to be in any manner bad as both the surveyors were of the appellant company and the appellant company cannot possibly deny the amount of compensation arrived at by these surveyors. The calculation given by M/s. Apex Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. has been accepted by the Commission and there is no reason for us to take a different view from the Commission as the Commission has arrived at the amount of compensation as assessed by M/s. Apex Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, we affirm the order passed by the Commission on this count also. However, we may modify the order of the Commission with regard to interest. The Commission has granted interest @ 9% from the date of report of the surveyor but we modify the said order and direct that the claimant will be entitled to interest at the same rate from the date of the order of the Commission instead of the date of report of the surveyor”
14. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the District Forum had erroneously awarded the amount different from the amount as assessed by the surveyor. Thus, the findings recorded by the District Forum as to the entitlement of the respondent for the sum of `3,49,640/- is liable to be modified as also the rate of interest awarded by the District Forum is liable to be modified as 9% per annum. The appellant is liable to pay the amount of `1,05,333/- as was assessed by the surveyor .
15. In the result the appeal is allowed modifying the order of the District Forum. The appellant/opposite party is directed to pay `1,05,333/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till payment together with costs of `500/-. There shall be no separate order as to costs.
Sd/-
I/c PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Dt.05.12.2013
కె.ఎం.కె.*
