A  Rajesh, President.

          The case of the complaint is as follows:

          The complainant is the owner of Ford car bearing Regn. No. KL-7AW2300.  He insured the vehicle with the opposite party for the period from 08-04-­2008 to 07-04-2009.  The facts being so the car met with an accident.  The complainant  intimated the same to the opposite party.  The surveyor appointed by the opposite party assessed the damages of the car at Rs. 1,45,144/-. The total repair amount was Rs. 2,85,041/-.  No valid reason is stated by the opposite party for repudiating Rs. 1,39,897/-.  The above decision of the opposite party was unilateral and arbitrary.  The complainant paid the balance amount of Rs. 1,39,897/- to release the car from the workshop.  The opposite parties are liable to pay the entire repair cost as per the assurance given by the opposite parties to the complainant.  The complainant is entitled to get the balance repair charges from the opposite party.  This complainant hence.

          2. Version of the opposite parties.

          The parties to the insurance contract are bound by the terms and conditions of the policy.  The loss of the complainant’s car has been assessed by the surveyor at Rs. 1,45,144/-.  The opposite parties liability is strictly limited to the policy terms and conditions.  The complainant is not entitled to get Rs. 1,39,897/- the amount claimed. 

                      3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A11 were marked on his side.  The witness for the opposite parties was examined as DW1. Exts. B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.  Heard the counsel for the parties.

          4. The only point that came up for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 1,39,897/- from the opposite parties over and above the amount already paid by the opposite party. Admittedly DW1, the insurance surveyor prepared Ext. B1 survey report, and assessed the damages of the complainant’s car at Rs.  1,45,145/-.  According to the opposite parties DW1 has assessed the damages in tune with the terms and conditions in Ext. B2 policy.  The counsel for the complainant vehemently contended that the complainant was not served with the terms and conditions of the policy.  But the complainant does not have such a case in his complaint  or proof affidavit  filed in lieu of chief examination.

          5. In short nothing is on record to repudiate the findings of DW1 in Ext. B1 survey report.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sri. Venkateswara Syndicate Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (SC) (CP) 2009 CTJ 1189 held  that  “insurance surveyor/surveyors are appointed by an insurance company under the provisions of the  Insurance Act.  Their reports are to be given due importance and there should be sufficient grounds for not agreeing with the assessment made by them.”

          There is nothing before us from the complainant to go against this finding.

          6. In the above circumstances we are only to hold that the complainant is not entitled to get any more insurance claim from the opposite parties.  The complaint is dismissed.

          The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month   from the date of receipt of a copy of this order

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30^th day of  September 2011