National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Rakesh Kumar vs Reliance General Insurance Company ... on 23 June, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4730 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 11/09/2013 in Appeal No. 254/2013 of the State Commission Chandigarh) 1. RAKESH KUMAR S/O KHEDU PRASAD , R/O HOUSE NO-1664, VIKAS NAGAR, MAULI JAGRAN, CHANDIGARH ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. SCO NO-145-146, TOP FLOOR, ABOVE, VLCC,SECTOR - 9C, THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, CHANDIGARH 2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE, PLOT NO- 60,SECOND FLOOR, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PHASE-3 NEW DELHI - 110020 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Himadri M.Mukherjee, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate
Dated : 23 Jun 2015 ORDER
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 11.9.2013 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 254 of 2013 - Rakesh Kumar Vs. Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd. & Anr. by which, while allowing appeal partly order of District Forum allowing complaint partly was affirmed and further interest was allowed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/petitioner purchased a Ford Figo car CH-47-T-1497 on 25.4.2011 for a sum of Rs.5,24,744/- and got it insured from OP/respondent for a period of one year from 25.4.2011 to 24.4.2012 for a value of Rs.4,95,900/-. It was further submitted that on 19.5.2011, vehicle met with an accident and FIR was lodged. Intimation was given to OP and as per instructions of OP damaged car was taken to NCR Ford (NCR Vehicle (P) Ltd.), the authorized service station of Ford Company on 2.6.2011. Staff of NCR Ford prepared estimate of Rs.5,00,000/- approximately. OP deputed Mr. Ramneesh Tangri as surveyor who took photographs of the vehicle and informed complainant that it was the case of total loss and he would try to get the cheque prepared, but after a few months, complainant came to know that another surveyor Mr. M.K. Aggarwal has been appointed who also took photographs, but never prepared to report the vehicle as a total loss and asked complainant to get it repaired. Complainant received letter dated 29.3.2012 for furnishing various documents and he was asked to produce vehicle at the workshop for repairs despite the fact that the vehicle was lying at NCR Ford since 2.6.2011. Inspite of repeated requests, as claim was not settled, alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complainant got prepared exorbitant estimate in respect of damaged vehicle from staff of NCR Ford. It was further submitted that OP appointed Mr. Ramneesh Tangri, Surveyor to assess the loss, but complainant did not allow workshop to repair the vehicle and insisted for declaring the same as a total loss, though, vehicle was repairable, so, Mr. Tangri could not make assessment. Thereafter, Mr. M.K. Aggarwal was appointed as surveyor who after inspecting vehicle assessed loss of Rs.1,28,000.38. Complainant did not allow workshop to repair the vehicle and insisted for declaring the same as a total loss. It was further submitted that Mr. Aggarwal, surveyor asked the complainant by numerous letters to provide repairs, bills, vouchers, etc., but complainant failed to do so and in such circumstances, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties observed that complainant is at liberty to claim assessed loss of amount as per surveyors report after completing documentary formalities as demanded by OP. Appeal filed by complainant was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and OP was directed to pay Rs.1,28,000.38 along with 9% p.a. interest from 24.4.2012 against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that without assigning any cogent reason for not placing first surveyor's report and inspite of proof of total loss of the vehicle, learned District Forum committed error in allowing only Rs.1,28,000/- and learned State Commission further committed error in not enhancing compensation; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and vehicle should be declared as total loss and full insured amount may be awarded. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that OP failed to place report of first surveyor on record and appointed second surveyor without any justification and in such circumstances, second surveyor report cannot be believed. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as first surveyor was asked by complainant to give report of total loss of the vehicle, he did not submit any report, so, second surveyor was appointed. Admittedly, first surveyor report has not been placed on record as he has not submitted any report. Perusal of pleadings reveals that complainant was interested in getting report of total loss of the vehicle whereas, neither first surveyor, nor second surveyor agreed to give report of total loss of vehicle and asked complainant to get the vehicle repaired, but as he failed to get the vehicle repaired, so, first surveyor did not submit report and in such circumstances, second surveyor was appointed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention towards IRDA rules which provide that surveyor has to be appointed for assessing loss within 72 hours of receipt of the report and shall give his report within 30 days or within extended period which may be extended upto 6 months. Admittedly, first surveyor was appointed immediately on receipt of information about accident, but he could not submit report as complainant was interested for giving report of total loss of the vehicle and in such circumstances, appointment of second surveyor was appropriate. No doubt, second surveyor was appointed on 14.3.2012 and submitted his report on 14.9.2012 which is within prescribed extended period, in such circumstances, his report is to be given due weightage. Learned State Commission rightly observed that second surveyor's report cannot be discarded lightly particularly when he assessed loss in respect of each and every part of the vehicle which was damaged strictly in accordance with terms and conditions of policy. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that first surveyor opined about case of total loss of the vehicle and assessed loss of Rs.5,00,000/-, but this fact has been denied by OP in its written statement. Petitioner should have either filed alleged assessment by first surveyor or should have filed affidavit of surveyor by which it could have been proved that first surveyor assessed total loss of the vehicle and in absence of any evidence it cannot be presumed that first surveyor opined about total loss of the vehicle.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per estimates more than Rs.5,00,000/- were required to be spent in repair of the vehicle and on account of total loss of the vehicle, complainant did not carry out repair of the vehicle. This estimate does not bear signatures of first or second surveyor and only on the basis of estimates it cannot be inferred that about Rs.5,00,000/- were to be spent on repairs of the vehicle. Normally, estimate is given for higher amount than the actual expenses to be incurred on repairs so that in future the consumer may not agitate about more expenses than given estimate and in such circumstances, on the basis of estimates prepared by NCR Ford it cannot be presumed that vehicle required expenses of Rs.5,00,000/- in repairs.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that surveyor has assessed loss only to the extent of Rs.1,28,000/- which is on very lower side and has allowed too much depreciation on the parts. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not apprise on which part higher depreciation was considered by surveyor. Learned State Commission rightly observed that accessor assessed loss in respect of each and every part of the vehicle strictly in accordance with terms and conditions of the policy. It was further submitted that Counsel for the complainant could not point out as to how report of surveyor was incorrect. During course of arguments before me also learned Counsel for the petitioner could not point out on which item more depreciation than permissible was allowed by surveyor.
8. Merely on the basis of submission of complainant it cannot be presumed that vehicle was required to be declared as a total loss when it was repairable. Surveyor has rightly pointed out that vehicle was capable of being repaired. In the estimate prepared by NCR Ford it has nowhere been mentioned that vehicle was not fit for repair and had it been so, NCR Ford would not have given estimate for repairs.
9. Learned State Commission has already allowed 9% p.a. interest on this amount of loss assessed by surveyor. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
10. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.
......................J K.S. CHAUDHARI PRESIDING MEMBER