Haryana

StateCommission

A/543/2015

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUNIL KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

J.P.NAHAR

04 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      543 of 2015

Date of Institution:      23.06.2015

Date of Decision :       04.12.2015

 

M/s National Insurance Company Limited, 5-C, 1 & 2 B.P. Railway Road, Neelam Chowk, NIT, Faridabad-121001 through its Divisional Manager, Registered Office: 3 Middleton Street, Post Box No.9229, Kolkatta-700071.

Now through its authorized signatory Archna Aggarwal, Assistant Manager, Regional Office, Regional Office-II, SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      Sunil Kumar s/o late Shri Lala Ram, Resident of Jeeva Nagar, Gaunchhi, Near Shyam Medical Store, Faridabad (Haryana.

Respondent/Complainant

2.      M/s Trumph Auto Private Limited, 20/12, Mujessar More, Opposite Orient Fan Company, YMCA, Delhi Mathura Road, Faridabad.

                                      Respondent/Opposite Party No.2

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri J.P. Nahar, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Kunal Dawar, Advocate assisted by Shri Rohit Rana, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Shri D.S. Adalakha, Advocate for respondent No.2.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been preferred by National Insurance Company Limited  (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party No.1, against the order dated 17^th April, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short ‘the District Forum’), in Consumer Complaint No.508 of 2012.

2.      Sunil Kumar-complainant (respondent No.1 herein) got his car bearing registration No.HR-38R-4358, Tata Indica, insured with National Insurance Company Limited-Opposite Party/appellant, for the period from 28.09.2011 to 27.09.2012 for Rs.4,59,745/- vide Insurance Policy Exhibit R-1/1. On 26.10.2011 the car met with an accident in the area of Roorkee (U.P.) and was damaged. F.I.R. No.380 (Exhibit R-1/5) under Sections 279,337,338,427 of the Indian Penal Code, was lodged on the same day in Police Station Roorkee Hardwar.  On being informed, the Insurance Company appointed surveyor who inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss at Rs.2,70,274.13 vide report Exhibit R-7. However, according to the complainant the damage of the car was to the extent of Rs.4,40,810 lacs and supplementary loss of Rs.1,80,805/- and thus total loss was of Rs.6,21,615/-. He filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated vide letter Exhibit R-1/6 stating therein that (i) there was delay in giving intimation (ii) the complainant was not having route permit of the vehicle and (iii) the vehicle was carrying passengers beyond its carrying capacity. Aggrieved thereof, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

3.      The opposite party/appellant contested complaint by filing reply reiterating the facts stated in the repudiation letter and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on the record, the District Forum accepted complaint directing the Insurance Company as under:-

“….Opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.4,00,000/-, repair bill raised by the opposite party No.2 to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till realization of amount within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of this order. Opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.5500/- as compensation towards mental agony, harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.”

5.      The only contention raised on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company is that the compensation awarded to the complainant is beyond the report of the surveyor.

6.      Indisputably, the surveyor of the Insurance Company assessed the loss to the extent of Rs.2,70,274.13, as per report Exhibit R-7 and the District Forum awarded Rs.4.00 lacs. We have seen the photographs of the vehicle in question which clearly indicate that there was no damage to the vehicle on its rear side. The IDV of the vehicle was Rs.4,59,745/-. By looking to the photographs of the damaged vehicle taken by the surveyor, it is clear that it being a head on collision only front of the vehicle was damaged. The roof and rear part of the vehicle was not damaged at all. Taking all these aspects into consideration this Commission feels that the surveyor has rightly assessed the loss at Rs.2,70,274/- and therefore nothing beyond the report of surveyor can be given to the complainant.

7.       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.  

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.    The complainant has not led any cogent and convincing evidence contrary to the report of the surveyor and therefore due weightage has to be given to the said report. The District Forum has erred by not taking this important document into consideration while awarding compensation.

11.    In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.2,70,274/- to the complainant instead of 4.00 lacs. Rest of the order of District Forum is upheld.

12.    The impugned order is modified to the extent indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of.

13.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal and Rs.2,70,274/- deposited on 30.07.2015 as per order of this Commission, be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 04.12.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL