PER MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 13.11.2006 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (‘State Commission’ for short). The petitioner herein was the original complainant before the District Forum and respondent Insurance Co. was the OP. Briefly stated, it is the case of the complainant that he is the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-22/861. The vehicle was insured with the OP Insurance Co. for the period from 14.12.2001 to 13.12.2002. It met with an accident on 27.12.2001. An intimation was sent about the accident to the OP Co. which immediately appointed a surveyor to assess the loss. On the basis of the report of the surveyor, the OP Insurance Co. offered a sum of Rs.35,646/- to the complainant as compensation. The complainant received the said amount under protest without prejudice to his rights but thereafter lodged a complaint before the District Forum claiming compensation of Rs.1,13,271.52 paisa. The OP Insurance Co. on being noticed, resisted the complaint and submitted that the accident claim in respect of the insured vehicle of the complainant had been settled by the Co. keeping in view the loss as duly assessed by the surveyor as per his final surveyor’s report as well as the bills scrutiny report submitted to the Insurance Co. The OP Co. denied any deficiency on its part in this regard and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. After scrutinizing the documents produced and assessing the evidence adduced before it, the District Forum vide its order dated 5.10.2005 partly accepted the complaint and directed the OP Insurance Co. to pay Rs.57,625/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 20.2.2003 till realization along with cost of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the OP Insurance Co. challenged the same in appeal before the State Commission which was accepted by the State Commission by its impugned order and accordingly the order of the District Forum was set aside. The complainant has, therefore, filed the present revision petition against the aforesaid order of the State Commission. 2. We have heard counsel for the petitioner firm and the respondent Insurance Co. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the surveyor has not allowed the full amount spent by the petitioner on repairs of the vehicle involved in the accident and hence the discharge voucher containing the offer of the respondent Insurance Co. in full and final settlement of the claim was accepted under protest without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. He said that the District Forum considered the evidence produced by the parties and rightly accepted the claim of the petitioner which was set aside by the State Commission by its impugned order simply because the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.35,640/-. He submitted that the deductions made by the State Commission while relying on the report of the surveyor were erroneous and in the absence of any allegation of fraud while submitting its claim to the Insurance Co., the reduction in the amount of his claim, which was supported by the bills, was not justified and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent Co. has argued that mere submission of bills does not mean that whatever amount is claimed shall be finally accepted for payment by the Insurance Co. He submitted that as required by law, the respondent Insurance Co. engaged the services of a licensed surveyor who investigated the claim with a view to assess the loss in terms of the conditions of the policy. The said surveyor inspected the vehicle in question and after careful scrutiny of the estimates and the bills produced by the complainant, assessed the loss suffered by the complainant at Rs.38,146/- and after deducting the value of the salvage amounting to Rs.2500/-, the net loss assessed was reported to be Rs.35,646/- which has already been offered in full and final settlement of the claim and also accepted by the petitioner firm although under protest. He contended that the District Forum has not given any cogent reason to discard the report of the licensed surveyor and simply accepted the version of the complainant in respect of the loss admissible as per rules. The State Commission while noticing this apparent mistake in the order of the District Forum, reversed it while accepting the appeal of the respondent Co. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the revision petition dismissed being devoid of any merit. 3. We have perused the orders of the fora below. While accepting appeal of the Insurance Co. and unsuiting the claim of the petitioner, the State Commission has made the following observations in support of the impugned order:- “Before the District Forum the complainant produced certain bills to show that he had spent Rs.1,13,271.52 in order to get the vehicle repaired. But, in order to prove the contents of the said bills the complainant has not filed the affidavit of the person who issued the bills or by examining him as a witness. Admittedly, the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.35,646/- after deducting certain amount towards salvage and the OP has paid the said amount to the complainant. In the absence of any acceptable evidence adduced by the complainant to show that he had spent Rs.1,13,271.52, in our view, it is just and necessary to rely upon the report of the surveyor. Therefore, the District Forum was not right in allowing the complaint of the complainant and in directing the OP to pay Rs.57,625/- to the complainant.” 4. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. The District Forum erred in discarding the surveyor’s report and bills scrutiny report submitted by the surveyor without any cogent or convincing reasons. It is to be noted that it is in accordance with the requirement of law that a surveyor is required to be appointed by the Insurance Co. and when such a surveyor who is licensed professional to assess such loss gives a report with reasons to support the same, such a report can be discredited only on the basis of specific grounds which are required to be recorded in the order. Mere production of bills or estimates cannot be the basis for discarding the report of the surveyor. Under the circumstances, we do not see any reason to differ with the view taken by the State Commission through its impugned order. Consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. |
