State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The New India Assurance Company Ltd., ... vs Rajbir Singh Son Of Lakhmi Chand R/O ... on 28 March, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.196 of 2008 Date of Institution: 21.11.2008 Date of Decision: 28.03.2012 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., G.T. Road, Panipat through its Divisional Manager. Through its Regional manager SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh. Appellant (OP) Versus Rajbir Singh son of Lakhmi Chand r/o Village Jasrasi Khas District Panipat now residing at Singhroha Poultry Service, Behind Gandhi Mandi, Panipat. Respondent (Complainant) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri Rajneesh Malahotra, Advocate for appellant. Respondent exparte. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 22.11.2007 passed by District Consumer Forum, Panipat in complaint bearing No.75/2007 filed by complainant (respondent herein) against the appellant-opposite party which relates to the Insurable Benefits with respect to insured vehicle which damaged in an accident during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy.
The brief facts of the present case as emerged from the record are that TATA-407 bearing registration No.HR-67-0414 was insured with the appellant-opposite party w.e.f. 20.05.2006 to 19.05.2007. On 13.09.2006 the vehicle damaged in an accident. FIR No.268 DATED 13.9.2006 UNDER Sections 279,337 I.P.C. was registered. Intimation was given to the opposite party upon which the surveyor and loss assessor of the Company inspected the vehicle and submitted his report dated 26.09.2006. Thereafter, Shri Manmeet Singh Makkar, Surveyor and Loss Assessor conducted the surveyor of the vehicle and assessed the loss to the extent of Rs.41,450/- being net liability of repair charges of the vehicle vide his report dated 15.01.2007. Complainant submitted claim with the opposite party. Opposite Party informed the complainant to submit bills of repair but the complainant did not submit the same. Not satisfied with the loss assessed by the surveyor, the complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum with the plea that he spent Rs.1,96,886/- on the repairs of his vehicle and thus sought direction to the opposite parties to pay the amount of bills alongwith interest and compensation on account of mental agony and harassment.
Upon notice, opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement. It was stated by the opposite party that the complainant was asked to produce the original documents of the vehicle including driving licence of driver Anil Kumar son of Ishwar Singh who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, copy of PMR/MLR of the person inured/dead in the accident and the bills of repair of the vehicle but he did not respond to the same for the reason best known to him and straightway filed complaint. It was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Consumer Forum accepted complaint and issued directions to the opposite party given below:-
.we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to make the payment of Rs.196886-00 to the petitioner together with 9 per cent interest from the date of surveyor report i.e. 27.12.2006 till realization and a sum of Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Consumer Forum, the opposite party has come up in appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Respondent is already exparte.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the survey was conducted by M/s Grover Associates. The surveyor had specifically pointed out that the driving licence of Anil who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not provided for verification. The surveyor Manmeet Singh Makkar was appointed for assessment of the claim who vide his letter dated 22.09.2006 wrote to the complainant to provide the FIR and to get the cabin repaired instead of getting the same replaced. The surveyor vide his report Annexure A-6 assessed the net loss of the complainant on account of damage of his vehicle to the tune of Rs.41,450/-. The surveyor also specifically observed that vide letter dated 22.09.2006, the complainant was asked to get the cabin of the vehicle repaired but the complainant got the cabin replaced with a new one. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the appellant-Insurance Company is bound under the provisions of Section 64 UM (2) of the Insurance Act, 1938 to appoint a surveyor to assess the loss. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant referred to Section 64 UM, reproduced in the grounds of appeal, as under:-
Section 64 UM(2) :- No claim in respect of loss which has occurred in India and requiring to be paid or settled in India equal to or exceeding Rs.20,000/- in value on any policy of insurance arising or intimated to the insurer at any time after expiry of a prior of one year from the commencement of the Insurance (Amendment) Act, 1968, shall otherwise directed by the controller, be admitted for payment or be settled by the insurer unless he has obtained a report on the loss that has occurred, from a person who holds licence issued under this Section to act as a surveyor and loss assessor (herein after referred to as the approved Surveyor or loss Assessor).
Thus, the claim of the complainant is only payable as per the terms and conditions of the policy keeping in view the report of the Surveyor. The complaint filed by the complainant was premature as the Insurance Company had not rejected the claim and the claim was in the process of finalizing the same after receiving the required documents from the complainant.
We find force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. By now it is well settled law that the report of surveyor is an important document unless and untill any evidence contrary to it is produced by the aggrieved party. The surveyor in his report had rightly deducted the depreciation on the metal parts, rubber parts and the glass parts as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.
Mere submission of the bills by the complainant with respect to the repair of bills is not the ground to grant compensation to the complainant to that extent. Reference in this regard is made to case law settled in Khimjibhai v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., IV(2011) CPJ 458 (N.C.) wherein it has been observed by Honble National Commission that the Forum had not given any cogent reasons to discard report of licensed surveyor and simply accepted version of complainant. Mere production of bills or estimates cannot be the basis for discarding report of surveyor.
The facts of the instant case are attracted to Khimjibhai v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. case (Supra).
As per the report of the surveyor, the cabin of the vehicle was repairable but the complainant got the same replaced with new one. Complainant also claimed the prices of rubber parts and glass parts against the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. More so, the complainant instead of submitting the required documents to the opposite party, straightway filed complaint before the District Consumer and this clever device of the complainant cannot be allowed to sustain. However, the driving licence was produced by the complainant before the District Consumer Forum as observed in para 5 of the impugned order but there is nothing on the record that the appellant-opposite party was given an opportunity to get verified the said driving licence from the Licensing Authority from where the licence was issued. Thus, on this ground as well the direction issued by the District Forum in the impugned is not sustainable. Complainant is only entitled to the claim as per the report of the surveyor subject to furnishing of the required documents demanded from him. District Consumer Forum has failed to appreciate the above stated facts, hence, the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain.
For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is disposed of with the direction to the complainant to furnish the documents sought by the opposite party including the driving licence of driver Anil Kumar son of Ishwar Singh, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. After receiving the aforesaid documents, the opposite party shall settle complainants claim within a period of 60 days as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.
The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-
deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 28.03.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member