National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Smt. Dipali Das vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. on 2 August, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3290 OF 2012 (From order dated 25.05.2012 in S.C. Case No.FA /199/2011 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, Kolkata) Smt. Dipali Das W/o Subranshu Das 6/6, Ramkrishapally (Near Durga Mandap) P.O. Malda, District Malda West Bengal Petitioner Versus 1. Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Joy Plaza Shopping Complex 2nd Floor, NH-34, Rathbari Malda, West Bengal 2. General Manager United India Insurance Co.Ltd 24, Whites Road, Chennai Respondents BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON 2nd AUGUST, 2013 O R D E R
JUSTICE J.M. MALIK
1. During the currency of the insurance policy, a pick-up van, belonging to Smt.Deepali Das, complainant, met with an accident, on 15.01.2010. The complainant made claim in the sum of Rs.2,26,768/-. The Surveyor gave his report, wherein he opined that loss of Rs.68,000/- was caused to the complainant. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum awarded Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages of the vehicle, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of litigation, the total being, Rs.2,12,2000/-. The said amount was directed to be paid within a month, otherwise, it was to carry interest @ 9% p.a.
2. Aggrieved by that order, an appeal was preferred before the State Commission by the United India Insurance Co.Ltd, respondent/OP. The State Commission allowed the appeal, in part. OP was directed to pay Rs.80,000/-
to the complainant, within 45 days, otherwise, it was to carry interest @ 6%, per annum, till realization.
3. The present revision petition has been filed by the complainant/ petitioner.
4. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner, at the time of admission of this case. The principal argument raised by him was that the petitioner has spent enough money and produced bill Estimates/Quotation, from Biswakarma Body Builders, Barasat, Kolkata. Exb.24 was produced before the District Forum. It was a reminder where it was explained that two Quotations related to the repairing of the vehicle and building of its body were submitted on 30.01.2010 and amount of these Quotations are Rs.1,80,768, plus, Rs.46,000/-, totaling to Rs.2,26,768/-. She prayed for the sanction of the above said amount. The attention of this Commission was invited towards the following extract of the District Forums order :-
Had the opposite parties been sincere in settling the claim of the complainant, they would have called upon the complainant by writing a simple letter to supply a copy of the estimate/quotation of Biswakarma Body Builders, if it was not available in the bunch submitted to them by the complainant before handing over the same to the Surveyor. The Surveyor also had such scope to write a letter to the complainant informing her of his appointment for investigation of her accidental claim along with the request to furnish him a copy of the estimate/quotation of Biswakarma Body Builders. Further, the opposite parties could have filed a petition before this Forum just after their appearance that a direction may be given to the complainant to supply a copy of the estimate/quotation so that they might complete the investigation as it was a long pending case.
But for reasons best known to them, they contested the case, challenged its maintainability on the grounds, including that the case in question has not yet been repudiated so the case is premature and suffers from want of cause of action.
5. Learned counsel submitted that there was no justification in granting such a low amount of this extent. The photographs produced before this Commission clearly go to show that the vehicle met with a serious accident. The Surveyor should have called for those documents. It is contended that the Surveyors report is not supported by any cogent and plausible evidence. This is mere ipse dixit of the petitioner, which, by no means, can be said to be sufficient.
6. All these arguments lack conviction. It is clear that the Surveyors report is pitted against the report of a private Surveyor. No reason was suggested by the respondent for discarding the report of the Surveyor. The Surveyor appointed by the insurance company is an independent person. He cannot be said to be an interested one. It clearly goes to show that the report of the Surveyor will get preponderance over the private Surveyors report. From the photographs filed before us, a clear picture does not emerge.
7. In D.N.Badoni Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd, 1 (2012) CPJ 272 (NC), it was observed that it is well settled that a Surveyors report has significant evidentiary value, unless it is proved otherwise, which the petitioner has failed to do so in the instant case.
8. The Honble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Roshanlal Oil Mills & Ors., (2000) 10 SCC 19, was pleased to hold :-
The appellant had appointed Joint Surveyors in terms of Section 64-UM(2) of the Insurance Act, 1938. Their report has been placed on the record, in which a detailed account of the factors, on the basis of which, the Joint Surveyors had come to the conclusion that there was no loss or damage caused on account of fire, was given and it was on this basis that the claim was not found entertainable. This is an important document which was placed before the Commission, but the Commission, curiously, has not considered the report. Since the claim of the respondent was repudiated by the appellant on the basis of the joint survey report, the Commission was not justified in awarding the insurance amount to the respondent without adverting itself to the contents of the joint survey report, specially the facts enumerated therein.
In our opinion, non-consideration of this important document has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice and vitiates the judgment passed by the Commission. The case has, therefore, to be sent back to the Commission, for a fresh hearing.
9. In the result, we dismiss the revision petition. No costs.
...
(J. M. MALIK, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ...
(DR.S. M. KANTIKAR) MEMBER Dd/16