State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs 1. Yashvir Singh Son Of Shri Chhotu Ram, ... on 10 February, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.298 of 2008 Date of Institution: 25.01.2008 Date of Decision: 10.02.2012 1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, B-9, Sector 16, Noida (UP). 2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. (Both 1 and 2 through, Regional Manager (Legal), ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, regional Office, SCO 214, Sector 14, Panchkula -134113. Appellants (Ops No.1 and 2) Versus 1. Yashvir Singh son of Shri Chhotu Ram, resident of 102, D.C. Colony, Sirsa. Respondent (Complainant) 2. Paramjit Singh, Agent, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Sirsa, Office at Deep Auto Dabwali Road, Sirsa. Respondent (OP-3) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri Rohit Goswami, Advocate for appellants. None for respondents expartee. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 31.10.2007 passed by District Consumer Forum, Sirsa whereby complaint bearing filed by complainant (respondent No.1 herein) seeking direction to the appellants-opposite parties to pay the insurable benefits, with respect to the insured motorcycle which burnt during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy, was accepted by granting following relief:-
..we direct the Ops to pay a sum of Rs.24000/- being the loss caused to the complainant within a period of six weeks with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 15.5.2006 till the date of final realization with costs of proceedings of the tune of Rs.2200/-. We further direct the Ops to implement the present order within a stipulated time failing which the complainant shall invoke the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum under Section 25 and 27 of the Act. We order accordingly. Copies of the order be supplied to both the parties as per the provision contained in Sub Rule 9 Rule 4 of the Haryana Consumer Protection Rules, 2004.
Undisputed facts of the present case as emerged from the record are that motorcycle of the complainant was insured with the appellants-opposite parties for Rs.38,727/- for the period 19.11.2004 to 18.11.2005. On 03.01.2005 the vehicle burnt due to short circuit. Complainant informed the Insurance Company upon which the surveyor of the Company assessed the damage of the vehicle to the extent of Rs.12,555/-. According to the complainant he got repaired the vehicle from Balaji Auto, Fatehabad Haryana by spending Rs.24,000/-. However, nothing was paid to the complainant. Forced by these circumstances, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.24,000/- for repairs of the vehicle; Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement stating therein that the complainant had not submitted the required documents including the bills for repair of the motorcycle and for that reason his claim could not be settled. 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 the complaint and issued direction to the opposite parties as noticed in the opening para of this order. Hence this appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file.
The contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the complainant had failed to furnish the required documents for settling his claim and for that reason his claim was rightly closed, however, the opposite parties were ready to pay to the complainant as per surveyors report i.e. Rs.12.555/- subject to furnishing of the required documents by the complainant.
By now it is well settled law that surveyors report is an important document for settling the claim of the claimant which cannot be brushed aside unless and until any evidence is produced by the parties contrary to it. Reference in this regard is made to case law cited as PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA versus NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, III(2008) CPJ 158 (NC), wherein the Honble National Commission has held that Surveyor Report is an important document and cannot be wished aside without any compelling evidence to the contrary.
In Bhawana Kumar versus General Manager Varun Webres Ltd. & Anr, 2008(4) CPR 82 (NC), Honble National Commission has observed that the surveyors are appointed by the Insurance Company and the reports are to be given due importance and that one should have sufficient grounds not to agree with the assessment made by the surveyor. In the instant case there is no other evidence contrary to the report of the surveyor and therefore, the same has to be given due importance.
Hence, this appeal is accepted and by modifying the impugned order, direction is given to the appellants to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.12,555/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing complaint till realization subject to completing of the necessary formalities, within 60 days from the date of this order. The order with respect to awarding of cost of litigation of Rs.2200/- is maintained.
The impugned order is modified on the terms indicated above and the appeal is disposed of.
The statutory amount of Rs.14,861/-
deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants 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 10.02.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member