PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. This order will decide both the revision petitions. In one revision petition, the order passed by the District Forum has been challenged and the second revision petition pertains to enhancement of amount. 2. M/s Abhiruchi Restaurant, the complainant took the insurance for his car from the Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company. During the subsistence of the Insurance Policy on 09.08.2008, the said car was struck up due to floodwater entering into the engine at Road No. 2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and on the same day the said vehicle was shifted to the workshop of Modi Ford Service Centre. The OP was informed on 11.08.2008 that the repair of the car would be at Rs. 4,29,332/-, this was the estimate. The complainant got the final bill at Rs. 2,85,762/-. However, the OP settled the claim at Rs. 93,000/- and paid the cheque, which was declined. 3. The complainant sent a legal notice on 06.12.2008 wherein it demanded the payment of Rs. 2,85,762/- alongwith interest @18%. However, in their reply the OPs refused to pay that much amount. Consequently, a complaint was filed before the District Forum. 4. The District Forum allowed the complaint. The State Commission modified the order and based his judgment on Surveyor’s report. 5. The surveyor came to the conclusion that the net loss was only upto the extent of Rs. 1,28,497-07 paise. Counsel for the petitioner/complainant points out that the surveyor’s report is not reliable. She draws our attention towards the relevant part of the Surveyor’s report, which is reproduced here as under:- “Photographs were taken before & after dismantling depicting nature & intensity of damages to engine aggregates. On verification of spare parts manual, it was established cylinder liner or not separately serviceable, instead of which entitled cylinder block has to be replaced in case of damages to cylinder bore. In the present case, rust scales & deep scratches were found in the cylinder bore, necessitate replacement of cylinder block. In spite of my efforts to convince the repairer, to polish cylinder bore or replace the effected cylinder liner, repairer has refused to do so, since the vehicle was under warranty for a mileage of 3,00,000 kms. After prolonged discussions with the repairer, also on contact the insured over phone, it was agreed & decided to bear the 50% cost of cylinder block in the form of depn., @50%.” 6. The main question is that the petitioner wants that the petitioner should bear the costs of new parts. The opposite party is under no objection to pay for the new parts. The car had already driven for one year and for how much mileage it had driven, it is not disclosed. The surveyor report is quite credit worthy and we are unable to reject the same. The Apex Court in an authority reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others Versus Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. & Ors. (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 19, in para No. 7 held:- “7. The appellant had appointed joint surveyors in terms of Section 64-UM (2) of the Insurance Act, 1938. Their report has been placed on the record in which a detailed account of the factors on the basis of which the joint surveyors had come to the conclusion that there was no loss or damage caused on account of fire, was given and it was on this basis that the claim was not found entertainable. This is an important document, which was placed before the Commission but the Commission, curiously, has not considered the report. Since the claim of the respondent was repudiated by the appellant on the basis of the joint survey report, the Commission was not justified in awarding the insurance amount to the respondent without adverting itself to the contents of the joint survey report specially the factors enumerated therein. In our opinion, non-consideration of this important document has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice and vitiates the judgment passed by the Commission. The case has, therefore, to be sent back to the Commission for a fresh hearing.” 7. Similar view was taken by this Commission in the case of D.N. Badoni Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. I (2012) C.P.J. 272 (NC), it was held that Surveyor’s report has significant evidentiary value unless it is proved otherwise -petitioner has failed to do so in the instant case. 8. The complainant has failed to allege that the Surveyor was having bad blood with them. The surveyor appears to be a guiless witness. We see no reason to discard his report. Its report clearly goes to show that the 50% of the new parts was granted. 9. Both the revision petitions are lame of strength, therefore, the same are dismissed. |
