National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Chanan Preet Singh vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd. on 17 November, 2011
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO.2893 OF 2007 (From the order dated 20.2.07 in Appeal No.476/05 of the State Commission, Punjab) Chanan Preet Singh Petitioner Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Respondents BEFORE:- HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MRS.VINEETA RAI, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr.Vivek Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr.Vineet Malhotra, Advocate Pronounced on 17th November, 2011 ORDER
PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by Chanan Preet Singh (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter to be referred as the State Commission) in Appeal No.476/2005 in which the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others were Respondents.
In his complaint before the District Forum the Petitioner stated that he is the owner of a Lancer Car which was insured with the Respondent/Insurance Company for a period of one year i.e. from 12.06.2003 to 11.06.2004 for a sum of Rs.7 lakhs for which he paid premium of Rs.26,137/-.
On 04.06.2004 the said car in which the Petitioner was travelling with his wife and mother and was being driven by his driver, Baljeet Singh, suddenly met with an accident when the right front tyre burst and the car fell into a side ditch by turning turtle and resting on its left side. The vehicle was badly damaged and passengers received minor injuries. A complaint was lodged with the Police and the matter was also reported to the Respondent/Insurance Company who appointed a surveyor to assess the loss. The surveyor carried out a spot inspection got the vehicle back on its wheels and submitted his report to the Respondent/Insurance Company. Thereafter, Petitioner made arrangements through the Premier Motor Garage to get the vehicle loaded on a truck and transported to Chandigarh for which he paid Rs.3220/-. Respondent/Insurance Company appointed another Surveyor on 12.06.2004 who assessed the loss as being Rs.2,59,181/- and by observing that the damage to the engine was not caused because of the accident but thereafter. According to the Petitioner, this was an incorrect finding and the loss assessed was very low particularly since even the Premier Motor Garage had assessed that the vehicle was totally damaged. In view of these facts and because Respondent/Insurance company did not pay Rs.7 lakhs being the insurance amount, Petitioner filed a claim before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and seeking Rs.7 lakhs with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till the date of payment.
The Respondent/Insurance Company on the other hand denied that there was any deficiency in service and stated that after due inspection of the vehicle by its surveyor, the net loss was assessed at Rs.2,59,181/-. Respondent further clarified that the first Surveyor only checked the registration number and physical damage to the vehicle and did not assess the actual loss caused to the vehicle. As per the report of the second Surveyor, the damage to the engine was not the result of the accident but was caused post-accident because the vehicle was driven without any mobil oil which had got drained out from the engine after the accident. By doing so, Petitioner violated Clause 4 of the Insurance Policy which inter alia stated that the owner of the vehicle should take proper precautions to prevent further damage or loss in case the vehicle has met with an accident.
The District Forum after hearing both parties allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner to settle the claim as per the bills issued by the Premier Motor Garage, Chandigarh with interest @ 12% per annum without indicating the actual amount but that the claim should not exceed the amount of insurance.
Aggrieved by this order, Respondent/Insurance Company filed an appeal before the State Commission which partially allowed the appeal and modified the order of the District Forum by observing as under:
Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company argued that in the case in hand the loss was assessed by the surveyor who is competent man to assess the loss. He assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,59,181/- and the complainant has not produced any iota of evidence to rebut the assessment made by the surveyor. He further argued that in the absence of any evidence the learned District Forum has no jurisdiction to ignore the assessment made by the surveyor and as such the District Forum cannot go beyond the assessment made by the Surveyor. We find force in this argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. We are of the view that the complainant is entitled to claim as per the assessment made by the surveyor i.e. Rs.2,59,181/-. We order accordingly. The Insurance Company shall make the payment on the submission or original bills by the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date after two months of lodging of the claim. Rest of the order of the District Forum is maintained.
Aggrieved by the lesser amount awarded by the State Commission, Petitioner has filed the present revision petition.
Learned Counsel for both parties made oral submissions. Learned Counsel for Petitioner stated that the State Commission erred by only depending on the report of the Surveyor regarding the damage to the vehicle and awarding only a sum of Rs.2,59,181/-. On the other hand, the District Forum after examining the photographs and the entire evidence including the report of the first surveyor had rightly concluded that there was damage not only to the vehicle but also to its engine as a result of the accident. Counsel for Petitioner further stated that even as per the report of the Premier Motor Garage it was confirmed that there was total loss to the vehicle including damage to the engine.
Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand stated that Petitioner was not able to provide any credible evidence that there was total loss to the vehicle including loss to the engine. It was confirmed by Counsel for Respondent that the first surveyor did not give any estimates or details of the damage and even the quotation form from Premier Motor Garage is only a quotation of the lowest rate for items purportedly required without clearly specifying that these required replacement because of the accident. Further, from the photographs available on file, it is clear that there was no damage to the front portion of the vehicle where the engine is located. The damage was mainly confined to the left side of the vehicle. These facts have also been confirmed by the detailed report of the Surveyor.
Therefore, the conclusion that the damage to the engine was caused because it was driven without there being mobile/engine oil is correct and was clearly not the result of the accident.
The Respondent/Insurance Company, therefore, rightly did not include the same while assessing the loss/damages.
We have heard learned Counsel for both parties at length and have gone through the evidence on record.
The fact that the vehicle was insured for Rs.7 lakhs and that it met with an accident 04.06.2004 is not in dispute. We further note that on getting intimation regarding the accident from Petitioner, Respondent/Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor, one Mr.Nirmal Jit Singh Jolly, who conducted an on-the-spot inspection, gave a brief history of the accident but not any assessment of the actual damage. It was only the second Surveyor who after a detailed inspection assessed the loss at Rs.2,59,181/-. The details of the actual damage caused as a result of the accident were clearly recorded and it was specifically stated that the loss caused to the engine did not come within the purview and scope of the insurance policy because it was not the result of the accident. We further note that the quotation form of the Premier Motor Garage where the vehicle was taken for repairs from the accident site, has only listed out the costs of various items but this cannot be given much credence because it is not clear from this whether these pertain to the repairs required because of the damage caused to the vehicle by the accident or otherwise.
On the other hand, we agree with the State Commission that the District Forum erred in ignoring the assessment made by the Surveyor assessing the loss at Rs.2,59,181/- and instead giving a vague and general direction that the Respondent/Insurance Company should settle the claim of the Petitioner as per bills issued by the Premier Motor Garage with interest @ 12% per annum and that the amount, however, should not exceed the amount of insurance i.e. Rs.7 lakhs. The report of a Surveyor is a credible document which must be relied upon unless controverted by credible proof of any infirmity in its findings.
We note that the Petitioner has not been able to lead any such evidence to controvert these findings. Even the photographs relied upon by the Petitioner do not indicate that there was total loss to the vehicle including damage to the engine. In view of the above facts, we see no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the State Commission and uphold the same. The revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
...
(ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT Sd/-
..
(VINEETA RAI) MEMBER /sks/