National Consumer Disputes Redressal
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Rama Nanda on 23 February, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1649 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 20/01/2015 in Appeal No. 1135/2008 of the State Commission Delhi) 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY,MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. R.O-I,LEVEL-4,TOWER-II, JEEVAN BHARTI,124 CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI - 110001 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RAMA NANDA W/O LATE SH.M.NANDA, R/O B-30 AMBE GARDEN, LIBAS ROAD, DELHI - 110028 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. C.K. Gola, Advocate Mr. Abhishek, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Satyam Chaturvedi, Advocate Dated : 23 Feb 2016 ORDER IA/6287/2015 There is a delay of 6 days in filing the revision petition. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the revision petition is condoned subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost to the complainant/respondent. The application stands disposed of.
RP/1649/2015 The complainant/respondent got a truck bearing No. HR-38Z-9637 insured with the petitioner company for the period from 20.06.2006 to 19.06.2007, for a sum insured of Rs.5 Lakhs. The aforesaid truck met with an accident, on 11.11.2006. The complainant obtained an estimate of the cost of repairs from Kapoor Diesel Garage Pvt. Ltd., an authorized dealer of the manufacturer of the vehicle. The aforesaid dealer estimated the cost of repair of the vehicle at about Rs.4.5 Lakhs as alleged in the para 4 of the complaint. It however was of the opinion that the chassis of the truck was completely damaged and was not in a reparable condition. The complainant however got the vehicle repaired from some other workshop and submitted various bills, comprising two bills one of Rs.3,88,035/- and other of Rs.1,27,125/- issued by Sawhney Automobile, one bill of Rs.17,000/- for mechanical works, one bill of Rs.52,000/- issued by Vishkarma Body Workshop for repairing the cabin and body of the damaged truck and one bill of Rs.4500/- issued by Ranjeet Show Wala in respect of dash board, thereby making a total of Rs.5,88,660/-. The insurer initially appointed a surveyor who only verified the cause of the accident and noted the damages to the vehicle. No assessment of the loss was made by him. The surveyor then appointed Mr. Manpreet Singh Lamba to assess the loss to the complainant. The said surveyor recommended payment of Rs.1,38,992.15 to the complainant. The aforesaid amount however was not acceptable to the complainant, who approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint.
2. The complaint was resisted by the insurer pointing out that the alleged cost of repair of the vehicle even exceeded the insured value of the vehicle. It was further stated in the said reply that the damage to the vehicle had rightly been assessed by the surveyor Shri Manpreet Singh Lamba and the insurer was not liable to pay the amount demanded by the complainant.
3. The District Forum vide its order dated 03.10.2008 directed the insurer to pay a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs to the complainant along with Rs.20,000/- as compensation.
4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the insurer approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the insurer is before us by way of this revision petition.
5. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that ordinarily the assessment made by the surveyor needs to be accepted. If however, it is shown that the assessment made by the surveyor is not objective or is based upon the extraneous factor or is wholly arbitrary, the consumer forum would be justified in rejecting the said assessment and directing the payment of a fair and reasonable compensation to the insured.
6. A perusal of the assessment made by the surveyor Shri Manpreet Singh Lamba would show that the vehicle was inspected by the surveyor at the premises of Kapoor Diesel Garage Pvt. Ltd. and photographs of the damaged vehicle were also taken at that time. The vehicle was later shifted to S.G.T. Centre for repairs. The vehicle was inspected by the surveyor during the course of repairs also. The report shows that the insured wanted the chassis of the vehicle to be replaced on the ground that it had developed cracks but the surveyor felt otherwise and recommended repair including welding of the chassis. The report of the surveyor shows that the estimate for replacement of the engine assembly was Rs.2,83,700/- though it is not clear whether the said estimate was given by the Kapoor Diesel Garage Pvt. Ltd. or it was obtained by the surveyor himself from some other dealer/workshop for its repair. The surveyor however allowed Rs.54,300/- for its repair. The report does not indicate on what basis the surveyor had estimated the amount allowed by him in respect of various parts of the engine assembly. Though considering the filed inspection made by the surveyor we will accept that the engine assembly could be repaired, we do not know how much amount the workshop would really have charged for repair of the said assembly. The surveyor did not obtain any estimate from any workshop whatsoever for repair of various parts of the engine assembly. Even in reply to the complaint, the insurer did not disclose on what basis the surveyor had made the aforesaid assessment for making repairs to the engine assembly. Thus, we are in a situation where we do not know as to what the source of the assessment made by the surveyor was. Therefore, we have no option but to hold that the said estimate was arbitrary.
7. We find that the insured wanted replacement of the chassis frame at Rs.1,27,125/- but the surveyor allowed only repair of the said frame. As per the estimate referred in the reply of the surveyor, the cost of replacement and fitment chassis frame alone was Rs.8500/-. He however allowed only Rs.3250/- for the repair of chassis frame. Again the report does not disclose on what basis the cost of repair of the chassis frame was assessed by the surveyor at Rs.3250. No quotation or estimate appears to have been taken before making the said assessment.
8. On a further perusal of the report of the surveyor, we find that he has allowed less than the amount given in the estimate for large number of parts/components. Again, he did not disclose in the report as to on what basis he had reduced the cost of those parts/components. Even in the reply to the complaint, no such disclosure was made by the insurer.
9. We also find that the labour cost allowed by the surveyor was also much less than the labour charges given in the estimate referred in his report. Again, neither the report nor the reply to the complaint discloses as to on what basis the surveyor had estimated labour charges at the amount recommended by him. Therefore, the assessment made by him becomes wholly arbitrary and cannot be accepted.
10. In our opinion, when an estimate is given by the insured to the insurer/surveyor, the surveyor, if he does not agree with the such estimate, should either obtain an estimate/quotation from the market or he should rely upon the cost of the parts and repair fixed by the manufacturer of the vehicle. Of course he will be estimated to deduct depreciation as per the terms of the insurance policy from the price of the new components in list of the manufacturer or the quotation giving price of the components taken from the market. Alternative, the surveyor can make local enquiry to ascertain the cost of various components of the vehicle which need replacement. Unless such an exercise is undertaken, there will always be a case for terming the report of the surveyor to be wholly arbitrary and irrational, since the cost of replacement of the various parts/components has to be the price at which the said parts/components are available in the market subject to of course to application of appropriate depreciation as per the terms of the insurance policy.
11. As far as the cost of repairs is concerned, if the surveyor does not agree with the estimate given by the complainant, he should, unless he goes by the cost of repair, if any, fixed by the manufacturer, obtain estimate of repairs from some other workshop and it is only the basis of such a quotation/estimate that he can reject the estimate obtained by the insured. Alternatively, he can make enquiry from some other workshops and note down the particulars of the workshop along with the charges quoted by it. In such a case, the insurer should ask the insured to get the vehicle repaired at the workshop which has provided a lower estimate of repair to the surveyor.
12. In the present case, the report submitted by the surveyor Shri Manpreet Singh Lamba does not disclose the basis on which the cost of replacement of the components as well as the labour charges were substantially reduced by him. Therefore the said report in our opinion cannot be accepted.
13. The next question, which arises for our consideration is as to how much the amount, the insurer should pay to the complainant. As noted earlier by us, the authorized dealer of the manufacturer had estimated the cost of repair to be Rs.4.5 Lakhs though the learned counsel for the complainant is right in submitting that on dismantling the vehicle, cost of repair could go higher. We also take note of the fact that the insured value of the vehicle was only Rs.5 Lakhs and the insurer had an option to pay the IDV to the complainant and in that case it would have been entitled to retain the salvage (damaged vehicle).
14. In the present case, though IDV of the vehicle was Rs.5 Lakhs, we do not know what was the estimated value of the salvage constituting the damaged vehicle. No such assessment was made by the surveyor. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that the cost of repair of the vehicle was estimated by the authorized dealer at Rs.4.5 Lakhs and its IDV was Rs.5 Lakhs only, we estimate the value of the salvage Rs.1 Lakh and accordingly we direct the insurer to pay a sum of Rs.4 Lakhs to the complainant, within four weeks from today. The revision petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA MEMBER