State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Chainsukh Parakh vs Mukesh Verma (Insurance Agent) & Ors. on 28 July, 2016
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/2016/208
Instituted on : 30.05.2016
Chainsukh Parakh, S/o Late Shri Dhanraj Parakh,
Aged 58 years, R/o : 18 H.I.G.,
Chhattisgarh Housing Board Colony, Hatkeshar,
Dhamtari, Tehsil & District - Dhamtari (C.G.) ..... Appellant.
Vs.
(1) Mukesh Verma (Insurance Agent),
Gaura Chaura Rampur Ward, Dhamtari,
Tehsil & District Dhamtari (C.G.).
(2) Micro Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited,
Bathena Chowk, Sinha Complex, Raipur Road,
Dhamtari, Tehsil & District Dhamtari (C.G.)
(3) Sunil Surana,
Engineer / Surveyor & Loss Assessor,
R/o : 19, Vivekanand Nagar, Raipur,
Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G.)
(4) Deepak Wadhwa,
Insurance Claim Investigator,
D-112, Sector - 1, Devendra Nagar, Raipur,
Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G.)
(5) Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited,
Krishna Complex, First Floor, Kutchery Chowk,
Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur (C.G.) ...Respondents
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
// 2 //
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for the appellant.
Shri P.K. Paul, for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5.
None for the respondent Nos.3 & 4.
ORDER
Dated : 28/07/2016 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.04.2016, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhamtari (C.G.) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.20/2014. By the impugned order, the District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed that :-
(1) The O.P.No.2 & O.P.No.5 will pay a sum of Rs.67,000/- (Rs.
Sixty Seven Thousand) to the complainant within a period of two months.
(2) If the O.P.No.2 & O.P.No.5 will not pay the above amount to the complainant within the stipulated period, then the complainant will be entitled to get interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of order.
(3) Parties shall be their own costs.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that the complainant is registered owner of Hundai Centro Car bearing registration No.C.G. 06/7595. The above vehicle was insured with the O.P.No.2 & O.P. No.5 under insurance policy // 3 // No.190582/31/11/01/00002195 for the period from 28.07.2011 to 27.07.2012. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle was Rs.1,21,500/- At the time of insurance of the vehicle, the O.P. No.1 assured the complainant in case of any accident the O.P.No.1 will co- operate the complainant and will pay the sum assured, but in spite of giving intimation regarding the incident, the O.P.No.1 did not co- operate the complainant for providing sum assured. On 20.11.2011 at about 8:30 P.M. the vehicle was properly parked by the complainant in front of his office in Dhamtari - Jagdalpur National Highway. In the intervening night of 20 & 21-11-2011 the vehicle of the complainant was properly parked, then the vehicle of the complainant was dashed by unknown vehicle and front portion of the vehicle was damaged. The intimation regarding the same was given by the son of the complainant to the O.P.No.2 on 21.11.2011 at about 11 A.M. on the basis of which the O.P.No.2 appointed Surveyor on 22/11/2011. The O.P.No.3 Surveyor was appointed by the O.P.No.2, who inspected the vehicle and instructed the complainant for obtaining estimate and also instructed the complainant that until and unless he ask him, he shall not take the vehicle in garage. The O.P.No.3 informed through mobile that the O.P.No.5 has appointed O.P.No.4 as Investigator. On 13.01.2012 the O.P.No.3 and O.P.No.4 came to complainant at Dhamtari and took photograph of the damaged vehicle and inspected the place of accident and took photograph of vehicle with the // 4 // complainant and also recorded statement of the complainant. The O.P.No.3 and O.P.No.4 were fully satisfied with the claim of the complainant and assured the complainant that they will try their level best for providing claim amount from the Insurance Company at the earliest. Thereafter malafidely on 23.01.2012 the O.P.No.4 sent letter dated which was sent on 28.01.2012 at 7:35 P.M. which shows malafides of the OPs and they want that the complainant should not receive the claim amount. This letter has been received by the complainant on 30.01.2012. The complainant replied the above letter to the O.P.No.4 but the OPs did not give any reply. The complainant sent a letter to the O.P.No.5 on 04.02.2012 along with full particulars and documents and demanded claim amount. The OPs did not give any reply. The complainant vide letter dated 15.02.2012 sent letter to the O.P.No.2 and informed regarding his claim. In response to the above letter then the O.P.No.2 and O.P.No.3 instructed the complainant to send the vehicle to garage for repairing, then the complainant sent the vehicle to Lucky Automobile with the help of crane of Bharat Mahavar on 20.02.2012 and paid rent of Rs.1,000/-. In the accident, the vehicle was badly damaged. The mechanic of the garage opened some parts of vehicle Centro Car bearing registration No.C.G.06/7595 on 21.02.2012. On 22.02.2012 the garage was closed due to weekly holiday. On 22.02.2012 at about 10.00 P.M. incident of fire occurred in Lucky Automobile, Dhamtari due to which vehicle Centro Car of the // 5 // complainant bearing registration NO.C.G.06/7595 and two other vehicle as well garage burnt and damaged. On 23.02.2012 at morning the son of the complainant immediately gave intimation to the O.P.No.2 regarding the incident and thereafter the complainant submitted all particulars and relevant documents demanded by the O.P. No.2 and O.P. No.5 to the Insurance Company. The complainant continuously contracted the OPs for obtaining claim amount. On 23.04.2012 the complainant contact the representative of O.P.No.5 Shri J.N. Mandal, Deputy Manager and submitted an application. Shri J.N. Mandal contacted the O.P.No.3 and O.P.No.4 and told that no report has been submitted therefore the claim cannot be settled and report be submitted earliest. Thereafter the O.P.No.3 sent the letter dated 23.04.2012. The O.P.No.3 and O.P.No.4 had written the letter to the complainant with malafide intention. The O.P.No.5 malafidely directed the O.P.No.3 and letter was sent to the complainant. On 19.09.2012 the O.P.No.2 informed to the complainant that Rs.67,000/- was sanctioned towards his claim and sent discharge voucher to the complainant for his signature, but the complainant refused to sign it. The O.P.No.5 illegally and contrary to the rules calculated the amount and sent letter dated 09.10.2012 to the complainant. In this regard the complainant sent letter to the O.P. No.5 on 11.10.2012 through fax and also gave a copy thereof to the O.P.No.2 personally. On 23.10.2012 the O.P.No.2 sent a letter to the complainant and threatened to close the // 6 // claim and it is also written that you are not taking interest in receiving claim amount, therefore, your claim file is closed. Therefore, again on 29.10.2012, the claimant sent letter to the O.P.No.2 which was sent by the O.P.No.2 to the Divisional Office. In this regard departmental letter of Divisional Office was received by the O.P. No.2 on 31.10.2012 in which it was instructed that it is not necessary to give any particulars to the complainant and also inform the complainant that after closing claim file from Divisional Office, no correspondence will be made with the insured. The above act of the OPs comes in the category of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant filed consumer complaint and prayed for granting reliefs, as mentioned in relief clause of the complaint.
3. The O.P.No.1, O.P.No.2 and O.P.No.5 have filed their written statement and denied the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint. The O.P.No.1, O.P.No.2 and O.P.No.5 have averred that the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle was fixed at Rs.1,21,500/- and the vehicle was of 2002 year model, therefore, there is possibility of depreciation in the vehicle. The complainant informed the Insurance Company regarding the incident occurred in intervening night of 20/21.11.2011 but he did not provide opportunity to get conduct spot survey at the place of accident and took the vehicle to another place, which is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. After investigation, O.P.No.1, O.P.No.2 and O.P. // 7 // No.5 came to know that the accident was not occurred at that place where the complainant is saying incident occurred. The complainant did not inform the real reason of the incident and breach the faith of the Insurance Company. The complainant has left the vehicle unattended at National Highway without taking any measure for its security, which is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. After getting intimation regarding the incident, the O.P.No.1, O.P.No.2 and O.P.No.2 appointed independent Surveyor Shri Sunil Surana, as per provisions of India Motor Tariff and I.R.D.A. and authorized him to investigate the matter and submit his report. This act does not come in the category of deficiency in service. According to the information given by Shri Sunil Surana, Surveyor to the O.P.No.1, O.P.No.2 and O.P.No.5, no feature was found that any other vehicle dashed the vehicle in question while reversing the vehicle, even then he requested the complainant to give estimate so that the loss can be assessed and report can be submitted, but the complainant did not pay any heed in this matter. The Surveyor inspected the vehicle in question in the commercial premises of the complainant, which is an open and unsecured place. The Surveyor did not told any thing regarding not sending the vehicle to garage. The inspection of the vehicle can be done by the Surveyor only when the parts are separately dismantled, therefore, it is the responsibility of the complainant to get the vehicle open and provide an opportunity to the // 8 // Surveyor to conduct survey. On 19.12.2011 i.e. after one month of the incident, the complainant obtained estimate and submitted the same along with claim form before the Insurance Company, but he did not send the vehicle to garage for inspection of the damaged parts of the vehicle and for assessment of the loss and the complainant also did not provide any assistance. On 20.12.2011, the vehicle in question was standing in the same place where it was standing earlier, therefore, the Surveyor again instructed the complainant to open the parts of the vehicle and informed him so that actual loss can be assessed, which was refused by the complainant. Shri Sunil Surana, Surveyor submitted his Final Survey Report No.11/12/129/F dated 30.04.2012 in the office of the Insurance Company and after perusal of the same loss was assessed to the tune of Rs.74,000/- on Net of Salvage Loss Liability (Total Loss Basis). As per the estimated submitted by the complainant the valuation of damaged parts of the vehicle was made to the tune of Rs.86,305/- and labour charge was shown at Rs.27,200/-, therefore, keeping in view the same for 9-10 years old vehicle as per contract of insurance 40% depreciation Rs.32,000/- and salvage value Rs.15,000/- was fixed and total Rs.47,000/- was fixed, as the IDV of the vehicle was Rs.1,21,500/- therefore, Rs.47,000/- was deducted and Rs.500/- was deducted as police excess and Rs.74,000/- was payable, which is also equivalent to the amount assessed by Shri Sunil Surana. The O.P.No.1, O.P.No.2 and O.P.No.5 have sympathetically consider // 9 // the claim of the complainant and deducted 10% from the assessed amount towards depreciation and found that a sum of Rs.67,000/- is payable. This amount was sanctioned and notice was sent by the O.P.No.1, O.P.No.2 and O.P.No.5 to the complainant for payment of above amount, which was received by the complainant. The O.P.No.1, O.P.No.2 and O.P.No.5 have not committed any deficiency in service. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. None appeared for the O.P.No.3 and O.P.4 inspite of service of notice before the District Forum, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte.
5. The complainant has filed documents. Annexure - 2 is Notice dated 21.11.2011 sent by United India Insurance Company Limited, Annexure 2 is letter dated 28.11.2011 sent by the complainant to Office Incharge, Police Station City Kotwali, Dhamtari (C.G.), Annexure 3 is Estimate Quotation /Bill dated 19.12.2011 issued by Lucky Automobiles, Dhamtari (C.G.), Annexure 4 is Motor Claim Form, Annexure 5 is letter dated 20.12.2011 sent by the complainant to The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Dhamtari (C.G.), Annexure 6 is letter dated 09.01.2012 sent by the complainant to The Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Dhamtari (C.G.), Annexure 7 is Statement of the complainant dated 13.01.2012, Annexure 8 is letter dated 23.01.2012 sent by Shri Deepak Wadhwa, // 10 // Insurance Claim Investigator to the complainant, Annexure 9 is letter dated 04.02.2012 sent by the complainant to Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, United India Insurance Company Limited, Raipur (C.G.), Annexure 10 is letter dated 15.02.2012 sent by the complainant to The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Micro Branch, Dhamtari (C.G.), Annexure 11 is insurance policy, Annexure 12 is Form of Certificate of Registration of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.06-7595, Annexure 13 is letter dated 23.02.2012 sent by the complainant to The Manager, United Insurance Company Limited, Dhamtari (C.G.), Annexure 14 is letter dated 25.02.2012 sent by Santosh Kumar Sahu, Prop. Lucky Automobiles to the Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Annexure 15 is letter dated 28.02.2012 sent by the complainant to Office Incharge, City Kotwali, Dhamtari (C.G.), Annexure 16 is paper cutting, Annexure 17 is letter dated 26.03.2012 sent by the complainant to the Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Annexure 18 is letter dated 23.04.2012 sent by the complainant to the United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Manager, Raipur (C.G.), Annexure 19 is letter dated 23.04.2012 sent by Shri Sunil Surana, Surveyor and Loss Assessor to the complainant,, Annexure 20 is letter dated 08.05.2012 sent by the complainant to The Superintendent, Dhamtari (C.G.), Annexure 21 is letter dated 10.05.2012 sent by Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company, Divisional Office, Raipur (C.G.), // 11 // Annexure 22 is letter dated 10.05.2012 sent by Deputy Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Manger, Raipur (C.G.), to the complainant, Annexure 23 is Final Report dated 31.05.2012 of Superintendent of Police, District Dhamtari (C.G.), Annexure 24 is letter dated 08.06.2012 sent by the complainant to Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Raipur (C.G.), Annexure 25 is letter dated 19.07.2012 sent by the complainant to Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Dhamtari (C.G.), Annexure 26 is Certificate dated 09.08.2012 issued by Nagar Palika Parishad, Dhamtari (C.G.), Annexure 27 is letter dated 09.08.2012 sent by the complainant to the Divisional Manager / Authorised Incharge, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Raipur (C.G.), Annexure 28 is letter dated 19.09.2012 sent by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , Micro Office, Dhamtari (C.G.) to the complainant, Annexure 29 is letter dated 25.09.2012 sent by the complainant to Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Micro Office, Dhamtari (C.G.), Annexure 30 is letter dated 09.10.2012 sent by Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Raipur (C.G.), Annexure 31 is letter dated 11.10.2012 sent by the complainant to United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Raipur (C.G.), Annexure 32 is Transaction Report, Annexure 33 is letter dated 23.10.2012 sent by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Dhamtari (C.G.) to the complainant, Annexure 34 is letter dated 29.10.2012 sent by the complainant to // 12 // Micro Branch Manager, Micro Office, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Dhamtari (C.G.).
6. The O.P.No.1, 2 and 5 have also filed documents. OP-1 is Private Car Package Policy No.190582 / 31 / 11 / 01 / 00002195, OP-2 is Form of Certificate of Registration of vehicle bearing registration NO.C.G.06-7595, OP-3 is letter dated 28.11.2011 sent by the complainant to Office Incharge, City Kotwali, Dhamtari (C.G.), OP-4 is Estimate Quotation / Bill dated 19.12.2011 of Lucky Automobiles, Dhamtari, OP-5 is Motor Claim Form, OP-6 is letter dated 23.04.2012 sent by Shri Sunil Surana, Surveyor and Loss Assessor to the complainant, OP-7 is letter dated 10.05.2012 sent by Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Raipur to the complainant, OP-8 is letter dated 10.05.2012 sent by Deputy Manager, Divisional Office, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Raipur to the complainant, OP-9 is letter dated 19.09.2012 sent by United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Dhamtari (C.G.) to the complainant, OP-10 is letter dated 09.10.2012 sent by Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Raipur (C.G.), OP-11 is letter dated 23.10.2012 sent by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Micro Office, Dhamtari (C.G.) to the complainant, Annexure OP-12 is Motor (Final) Survey Report dated 30.04.2012 of Shri Sunil Surana, Surveyor and Loss Assessors, OP-13 is Investigation Report dated 03.05.2012 of Shri Deepak Wadhwa, Investigator.
// 13 //
7. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (complainant) has argued that the appellant (complainant) is registered owner of vehicle Centro Car bearing registration No.C.G.- 06/7595 and the same was insured with the O.P.No.2 & 5 for the period from 28.07.2011 to 27.11.2012. The Insured Declared Value of the vehicle is Rs.1,21,500/-. On 20.11.2011 at about 8:30 PM, the vehicle in question was properly parked in from of office of the appellant (complainant) in Dhamtari - Jagdalpur National Highway. In the intervening night of 20 & 21/11/2011, an unknown vehicle dashed the vehicle in question due to which the vehicle in question was badly damaged. The intimation regarding the same was given by the complainant to the O.P.No.2 and O.P.No.5. The O.P.No.5 has appointed Surveyor, who visited the spot on 22.11.2011 and instructed the complainant for obtaining estimate. The vehicle in question was taken to the Garage of Lucky Automobiles, who gave estimate. The vehicle in question was kept in the garage and on 22.11.2011 the incident of fire occurred in the Garage, in which the vehicle in question was completely burnt. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.1,21,500/- which is Insured Declared Value of the vehicle in question, but learned District Forum has erroneously disallowed the above claim and only awarded a sum of Rs.67,000/- which is insufficient. The appellant (complainant) is also entitled to get compensation towards mental agony and cost of // 14 // litigation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, but learned District Forum, has wrongly disallowed the above prayer. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant (complainant) may be allowed.
8. Shri P.K. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1), respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) and respondent No.5 (O.P. No.5) has argued that the impugned order passed by the District Forum is just and proper and does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. He further argued that the vehicle in question was removed by the complainant from the place of occurrence of incident and the same was kept in open condition in his commercial premises, therefore, deterioration caused to the vehicle in question. The respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) & respondent No.5 (O.P.No.5) appointed Surveyor and Investigator. The Surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.74,000/- and after deducting 10% depreciation he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.67,000/-. Intimation regarding the same was given to the appellant (complainant), but he refused to accept the above amount. The appellant (complainant) is only entitled for getting the above amount, therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum, is reasonable and does not call for any interference by this Commission.
9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum.
// 15 //
10. It is admitted fact that the appellant (complainant) is registered owner of Hundai Centro Car bearing registration No.C.G.06/7595 and the said vehicle was insured with the O.P.No.2 (respondent No.2) and respondent No.5 (O.P.No.5) for the period from 28.07.2011 to 27.07.2012. According to the appellant (complainant) the incident took place in the intervening night of 20/21-11-2011 and the matter was reported to the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) and respondent No.5 (O.P.No.5) and they appointed Shri Sunil Surana as Surveyor and Loss Assessor.
11. The respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1), respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) and respondent No.5 (O.P.No.5) have filed document OP-6 which is letter dated 23.04.2012 sent by Shri Sunil Surana, Surveyor and Loss Assessor to the appellant (complainant), in which it is mentioned thus :-
"1. The vehicle had met with an accident on date 20/11/2011 due to collision probably by third party and your self submitted the claim form estimate on 20/12/2011 to the Insurance Company.
2. You had not carried out any repair works and neither send the vehicle to the repairer place for repair till 13/01/2011.
3. Further as learned that the vehicle has caught fire on 22/02/2012 (at night) while the same was parked sent to the repairer place for repair.
4. Explain why the vehicle was not repaired from 20.11.2011 to 22.02.2011 i.e. 3 months. It was lying idle at your place."
// 16 //
12. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Raipur sent letter dated 09.10.2012 (Annexure OP-10) to the appellant (complainant) in which it is mentioned that the appellant (complainant) informed regarding the incident to the Police after 10 days belatedly on 30.11.2012 and the vehicle was removed from place of occurrence of incident and the same was kept in the commercial premises of the appellant (complainant), therefore, spot survey could not be conducted.
13. Shri Deepak Wadhwa, was appointed as Investigator and he found that the vehicle in question was shifted to repairer's shop on 20.02.2012 i.e. after near about 3 month of the date of accident.
14. Shri Sunil Surana, Surveyor and Loss Assessor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.74,000/- and after deduction of 10% depreciation, net loss was assessed to the tune of Rs.67,000/-.
15. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pavan Enterprises & Anr. I (2016) CPJ 503 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"12. I see no reason to discard the report of the Surveyor. He appears to be a guideless witness. No motive was ever attributed to him. There must be some reasonable ground or doubt to reject his report. The report of the Surveyor carries infinite significance as was held in Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. & Ors., 2014 (SLT Soft) 1 = 2014 (CPJ Soft) 1 = (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 19 and in D.N. Badoni v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., I (2012) C.P.J. 272 (NC)."
// 17 //
16. In United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shree Sunder Marbles, 2016 (1) CPR 66 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "Surveyor report being important document under Insurance Act should be main point of consideration for assessing loss and deciding insurance claim."
17. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs. Pave Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., 2015 (3) CPR 577 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "Loss of assessment by approved Surveyor can be discarded only on cogent reasons".
18 In Garg Acrylics Ltd., Through Sh. Anish Bansal G.M. (G.M.) Authorised Representative vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2015 (1) CPR 273 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"11.................. This is settled Law that the report of the surveyor is to be given much more weightage than any other piece of evidence. See the Law laid down in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others Versus Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. & Ors. (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 19 & in D.N. Badoni Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. I (2012) C.P.J. 272 (NC)".
19. In The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Through its Regional Manager vs. Ishwar Singh, 2015 (1) CPR 157 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"17. Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn our attention to the Apex Court Judgment in the case Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and Another, (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 507 wherein the Apex Court has held as under :-
// 18 // "There is no disputing the fact that the surveyor/surveyors are appointed by the insurance company under the provisions of the Insurance Act and their reports are to be given due importance and one should have sufficient grounds not to agree with the assessment made by them".
20. In Shankarlal Virji Thakkar vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2015 (1) CPR 821 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"7. The report of the Surveyor appears to be quite reasonable and just. There is no evidence whatsoever to 501 affected bags + other bags which were not counted. Thos bags must have fetched some amount. There is no reason to discard the report of the Surveyor. It is a balanced report. It has considered all the factors. It is well settled that the report of the Surveyor has to be given due weightage in view of the celebrated authorities of the Hon'ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others Versus Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. & Ors. (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 19, para 7, D.N. Badoni Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. I (2012) CPJ 272 (NC).
21. In New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Balaji Emporium, I (2015) CPJ 588 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"9. We are of the considered view that the report made by the Surveyor appears to be correct. It is bolstered by sold and unflappable evidence. He has also considered the income tax reports and entries in the stock registered. The conclusion of the State Commission is vague, evasive and leads us nowhere."
// 19 //
22. In Iffco Toko General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Beena Raghav, III (2015) CPJ 75 (NC); Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "respondent failed to explain her reluctance and refused to get the car repaired and thereafter claiming cost incurred based on actual bills for repair. No cogent reason for dismissing survey report as untrustworthy. Total loss not established."
23. In M/s. Hinafil India Limited vs. United India Insurance Company Limited & Another, 2015 (3) CPR 35 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission, has observed that "Surveyor being a third person, report submitted by him is entitled to a great weight and should ordinarily be accepted."
24. Therefore, report of the Surveyor is reliable document and the report of the Surveyor is an important and reliable document unless and until it is rebutted by cogent and dependable evidence by the other party.
25. So far as compensation for mental agony is concerned, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the appellant (complainant) himself was negligent in not getting the vehicle repaired in time and he removed the vehicle from the place of occurrence of incident and kept it in his commercial premises and after three months, the vehicle in question was taken to garage where it was burnt, therefore, the appellant (complainant) is not entitled to // 20 // get any compensation towards mental agony. The District Forum has rightly disallowed prayer of the appellant (complainant).
26. Therefore, the impugned order dated 08.04.2016, passed by the District Forum, is just and proper and does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, hence does not call for any interference by this Commission.
27. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant (complainant) being devoid of any merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta) President Member Member Member 28 /07/2016 28 /07/2016 28 /07/2016 28 /07/2016