State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Gunwant Singh & Ors. on 8 February, 2010
APPEAL NO: 636/2009 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Jaipur Regional Office 'Jeevan Nidhi' IInd floor, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur through Manager. Opposite party no.3- appellant Vs. 1. Sh.Gunwant Singh s/o Sh.Karan Singh Asoliya r/o Devana, Teh and Distt. Rajsamand ( Raj.) Complainant-respondent 2. Lohia Auto Mobiles (Authorised Maruti Dealer) Ajmer Road, Near Octori Post, Bhilwara Distt. Bhilwara. Opposite party no.1-respondent 3. Lohia Auto Mobiles, Nar Ice Factory, Bhilwara Road, Kankroli Teh. and Distt. Rajsamand. Opposite party no.2-respondent 8.2.2010 Before: Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg- President Mr.Sashi Kumar Pareek- Member2
Mr.Dinesh Kala counsel for the appellant Mr.Akshay Sharma counsel for respondent no.1 Mr.Sanjay Rahar counsel for respondents no. 2 & 3 BY THE STATE COMMISSION This appeal has been filed by the appellant which was opposite party no.3 before the District Forum against order dated 9.3.09 passed by the District Forum, Rajsamand in complaint no. 211/07 by which the complaint of complainant respondent no.1 was allowed against the appellant in the manner that the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,53,363/- as amount of compensation for the damage of the vehicle alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order andn further to pay an sum of Rs.500/- as costs and complaint against respondents no. 2 & 3 was dismissed.
2. It arises in the following circumstances-
That the complainant respondent no.1 had filed a complaint before the District Forum,Rajsamand on 11.12.07 inter alia stating that his Maruti Car bearing registration no. RJ 30 CA 0509 was got insured with the appellant Insurance Co. for a sum of Rs.1,87,377/- for the period 9.2.07 to 8.2.08 and the policy no. was 1780675. It was further stated in the complaint that the said car was purchased by the complainant after taking loan from the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. It was further stated in the complaint that on 22.6.07 when the 3 complainant alongwith his family members were going to Ujjain ( MP ), the said car had met with an accident at Agra Road, as a result of which the car in question was damaged and further his mother Paras Kunwar and two other members had received injury due to that accident. It was further stated in the complaint that information of that accident was given to the office of the appellant Insurance Co. and the said vehicle was brought from the place of accident to Vipul Automobiles, Rajsamand for repair of that vehicle and estimate for repairing the vehicle which was prepared by respondents no. 2 & 3 was to the tune of Rs. 2 ,00,800/- but no claim was paid by the appellant Insurance Co. and for that deficiency the present complaint was filed by the complainant.
A reply was filed by the appellant Insurance Co. before the District Forum, Rajsamand on 26.2.08 and the case of the appellant was that when the information of that accident was received by the appellant, Mr. Deepak Kapoor, Sr. Surveyor and Loss Assessor was appointed on 27.8.07 and thereafter complainant respondent no.1 was requested for so many times for sending the necessary papers for settling the claim but since they were not sent by the complainant respondent no.1 and in absence of these papers Mr.Deepak Kapoor had not submitted his report and because of that reason, the claim of the complainant respondent was neither repudiated nor settled by the appellant. It was further 4 stated in the reply that it was wrong to say that estimate for repair of the vehicle was given to the appellant for a sum of Rs. 2 ,00,800/-. It was further stated in the reply that later on Mr.Deepak Kapoor had submitted his report who had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.39,662/- and it was prayed that complaint be allowed to that extent only.
After hearing the parties, the District Forum, Rajsamand through impugned order dated 9.3.09 had allowed the complaint of the complainant respondent no.1 inter alia holding that since Vipul Automobiles had given an estimate for repair of the vehicle to the tune of Rs. 2 ,00,800/- and since the vehicle in question was insured for a sum of Rs.1,87,377/- and after deducting the depreciation amount of Rs.10,000/- and further a sum of Rs.24014/- as amount of those items which were stolen, therefore, the District Forum had come to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,53,363/-.
Aggrieved from the said order dated 9.3.09 passed by the District Forum,Rajsamand, this appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Co.
3. In this appeal the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the assessment made by the District Forum could not be said to be a correct evaluation of the damage of the vehicle in question as the District Forum had 5 itself stated that Vipul Automobiles had given an estimate to the tune of Rs.2,00,800/- and since the bills etc. were not submitted by the complainant to the appellant inspite of so many reminders, therefore, the findings recorded by the District Forum be not accepted and the matter be remanded back to the appellant Insurance Co. to settle the claim of complainant rspondent no.1 and complainant respondent no.1 be directed to furnish the necessary bills etc. to the appellant Insurance Company.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned order passed by the District Forum,Rajsamand.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as for the respondents and have gone through the entire materials available on record.
6. In our considered opinion, taking into consideration that the assessment which was made by the District Forum was based on estimate given by Vipul Automobiles and taking into consideration that the appellant Insurance Co. had issued so many reminders to the complainant respondent no.1 for sending the necessary papers and they were not sent by the complainant and taking into consideration that the claim of the complainant was neither finally settled by the appellant nor repudiated by the appellant, therefore, in these circumstances, the findings recorded by the District Forum could not be sustained and it would be just and proper to remitt the matter 6 to the appellant Insurance Co. to settle the claim after taking into consideration the relevant papers.
7. It may further be stated here that so far as the report of surveyor Mr.Deepak Kapoor by which assessment was made to the tune of Rs.39,662/- is concerned, that should not be taken as final assessment by the appellant Insurance Co.for the reason that the same was not determined on the basis of bills etc. as the appellant has itself stated that the complainant had not submitted the relevant papers.
8. For the reasons stated above, the findings of the District Forum by which complaint of the complainant respondent no.1 was allowed could not be sustained as they suffer from basic infirmity, illegality and perversity. Hence, this appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 9.3.09 is liable to be quashed and set aside and the complainant respondent no.1 be directed to submit to the appellant Insurance Co. the necessary papers alongwith bills for which he had made the payment to Vipul Automobiles within one month from today and thereafter the appellant would settle the claim of the complainant respondent no.1 within two months from the date of receipt of the papers after giving opportunity of hearing to the complainant respondent no.1 if so desires. It is further made clear that in case the complainant is not satisfied with the appellant Insurance Co., the complainant respondent no.1 would have a fresh cause of action to file the fresh complaint.
7Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant Insurance Co. is allowed and the impugned order dated 9.3.09 passed by the District Forum,Rajsamand is quashed and set aside and following directions are given to the parties-
(i) That the complainant respondent no.1 is directed to submit to the appellant Insurance Co. the necessary papers alongwith bills for which he had made the payment to Vipul Automobiles within one month from today and thereafter the appellant would settle the claim of the complainant respondent no.1 within two months from the date of receipt of the papers after giving opportunity of hearing to the complainant respondent no.1 if so desires.
(ii) That in case the complainant is not satisfied with the appellant Insurance Co., the complainant respondent no.1 would have a fresh cause of action to file the fresh complaint.
Member President NM