National Consumer Disputes Redressal
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Shri Ashok S/O Shri Shanker Lal on 25 April, 2011
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO.785 OF 2007 (Against the order dated 27-11-2006 in Appeal No.2829/2000 of the State Commission, Delhi) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Regional Office I, Jeevan Bharti Building 124, Connaught Circus New Delhi - 110001 ..Petitioner Vs. Shri Ashok S/o Shri Shanker Lal R/o A-535, Raghubir Nagar New Delhi - 110027 ..Respondent BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind, Advocate For the Respondent : NEMO PRONOUNCED ON 25 APRIL, 2011 O R D E R
ASHOK BHAN J.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the petitioner herein, who was the opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North West, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (for short, the District Forum) has filed this revision petition against the order dated 27th November, 2006 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi (for short, the State Commission) in Appeal No.A-2829 of 2000 whereby the State Commission has modified the order of the District Forum and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1,17,527/- besides Rs.25,000/- in lieu of interest as lumpsum compensation for the mental agony, injury instead of Rs.20,000/- which had been awarded by the District Forum.
Respondent is not present despite service of notice, proceeded ex parte.
Respondent/complainant, who is the registered owner of truck No.DL-1GA-6626 got his vehicle comprehensively insured from the petitioner for the period from 9th March, 1998 to 8rd March, 1999. Vehicle met with an accident near village Labana, Police Post Achrol, Rajasthan. FIR regarding the accident was lodged with the Police Station Achrol. Respondent informed the petitioner about the accident on 24th January, 1999 with a request for spot survey of the truck which was lying in the police custody. Survey was conducted by the authorized officer of the Jaipur office of the petitioner and after getting the truck released from the police custody, the respondent brought it to Punjabi Bagh, Delhi with the help of a crane. On 27th January 1999, the respondent again wrote a letter to the petitioner for inspection of the truck and for permission to get the same repaired. After inspection by the surveyor and getting permission for repairs, he got the truck repaired and put up the claim of Rs.1,17,527/- on 12th April, 1999. Alleging that the insurance company did not settle the claim on one pretext or the other the respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum.
Petitioner/insurance company, on being served, entered appearance and filed its written statement. Petitioner took the stand that the respondent had given a highly exaggerated figure for the alleged repairs which included repairs to the engine and other mechanical jobs which were not the direct result of the accident. According to the petitioner it was liable to reimburse only the accidental damages to the vehicle. The further stand taken by the petitioner was that as per survey report of Shri Jeevan Aggarwal, damages due to accident were to the tune of Rs.20,864.50/-. That the claim of the complainant was not settled as he failed to file copy of the GR, FIR and the fitness certificate.
Relying on the report of the surveyor, the District Forum held that the entire claim of the complainant could not be accepted as the same was highly exaggerated. That the insurance company was liable to reimburse for the loss caused due to the accident only and not for repairs of the engine and other mechanical jobs which were not the result of the accident. Accordingly, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.25,000/- along with Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost.
Complainant, not satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum filed an appeal before the State Commission.
The State Commission without reversing the finding of the District Forum that the extensive damage to the engine was not because of the accident modified the order and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1,17,527/- claimed by the respondent along with Rs.25,000/- in lieu of interest as lumpsum compensation for the mental agony, injury, etc..
Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length.
The vehicle was examined at Jaipur by the spot surveyor of the petitioner. According to the report of spot surveyor the damage to the engine was not due to the accident as the engine was nowhere in the line of impact of the accident. The report reads as under:
As engine block found broken from left side, but looking to the nature and cause of accident, in my opinion the loss not looking of accidental nature, as the engine was nowhere in the line of impact, in my opinion the damage happened to engine of mechanical failure, further in detail may be checked at workshop. It is to be noted that there was no hit on engine.
Even in the final survey report dated 16th July 1999 the surveyor had observed that the damage to the engine was not due to accident. The relevant portion of the final survey report reads as under:
Regarding engine matter was discussed with the insured and I informed him that considering the nature of damages, damages to engine are not possible in this accident and it is quite possible that damage to engine are due to mechanical failure. On careful inspection of the vehicle, it was gathered that the engine block is broken both from left and right side (behind self and fuel injection pump) and fuel injection pump was also found broken. On further inspection, damages to the block were found inside to outside. Engine was dismantled in our presence and it was further gathered that connection rod is broken and no seizure was observed either in the piston or on bearings. Considering all these facts, it is clear that due to opening of the gutzan bolt connection rod would have opened thus braking the engine block on both side which in turn damage the fuel injection pump. This would happened when the vehicle was in running condition and after breaking the engine block, driver would have been applied the brakes and following truck would have hit into the rear portion of the insured truck after which the other damages were occurred.
Surveyor, in his final report, assessed the liability of the petitioner-insurance company on repair basis at Rs.20,864.50/-. The petitioner was willing to settle the claim of the respondent subject to compliance of necessary formalities like supplying true certified copy of the FIR, etc.. Instead of complying with the requirements the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum. It has repeatedly been held by this Commission as well as the Honble Supreme Court of India that the report submitted by the surveyor is an important piece of evidence, which can be displaced by leading some cogent evidence to prove to the contrary. It has to be given due weight. The spot surveyor as well as the surveyor, who did the final inspection have reported that the damage to the engine was not due to the accident. That the engine was not in the line of impact of the accident. The survey report submitted by both the surveyors remained unrebutted. The respondent did not lead any evidence to show that the damage to the engine or other mechanical parts was due to the accident. In the absence of any other evidence showing to the contrary the report submitted by the surveyor has to be accepted. The State Commission in its order has nowhere held that the damage to the engine was due to the impact of the accident. The respondent did not produce the mechanic who had repaired the vehicle to prove that the damage to the engine was due to accident. The disputed truck was parked when it was struck on its backside by the other truck. The engine was not in the line of impact of the accident. We agree with the view taken by the District Forum that the damage to the engine was not due to the accident and the claim put forth by the respondent was highly exaggerated as it included the complete overhauling of the engine. The insurance company was liable to reimburse for the loss caused due to accident only. It was not liable to pay for the overhauling of the engine.
For the reasons stated above, the revision petition is accepted, order of the State Commission is set aside and that of the District Forum is restored. No costs.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(VINEETA RAI) MEMBER