State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Mr. Waliuddin Abdul Karim Choudhary on 26 November, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD . Date of filing : 10.04.2008 Date of Order: 26.11.2009 FIRST APPEAL NO. 401 OF 2008 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 130 OF 2007 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: LATUR. M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Having its Head & Regd. Office at 87, New India Assurance Building, Fort-Mumbai-400 001. Branch at Parbahni Through Senior Divisional Manager, M/s. New India Assurance Co. ltd. Adalat Road, Ajay Engg. Compound, Aurangabad. Dr. Shrikant Baliram Aney, Appellant -VERSUS- Mr. Waliuddin Abdul Karim Choudhary Paigamberpura Opp. Masjid, Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. Respondent Coram : Shri. S. G. Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member. Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member. Present : Adv. Shri. V. N. Upadhye, for appellant. Adv. Shri. S.N. Lavekar, for respondent. :: ORAL ORDER :
:
Per Shri S. G. Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member
1. The present appeal is filed by the New India Assurance Company against the judgment and order dated 24.01.2008 in complaint case No. 130/2007 passed by District Consumer Forum, Latur.
2. The respondent/complainants case before the Forum is that, his vehicle Tata Spacio jeep MH-24-C-1975 had been insured with the present appellant for 23.03.2003 to 22.03.2004 for sum assured Rs.2,29,800/-. It is contended that, the vehicle in question met with an accident on 21.04.2004 in the mid night while proceeding towards Bhalki village. The accident was registered in Bhalki police station. Police drew the panchanama. The accident was informed to the present appellant. It is contended that, the appellant appointed the surveyor, who assessed the loss sustained to the vehicle in question. It is contended that, the complainant incurred the amount of Rs. 1,07,326/-for the repairs of vehicle. It is contended that, as the complainant was in financial crisis he was compelled to sale the vehicle. He demanded the loss assessed by the surveyor but appellant refused to pay the amount. Appellant asked him to produce the vehicle. He could not produce the vehicle for re-inspection and thus, he approached the Forum.
3. The present appellant appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. The appellant is not at dispute about insurance and vehicle accident.
Even the appellant is not at dispute that, the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.42,400/- and appellant had sanctioned the loss assessed by the surveyor. It is contended that they have asked the complainant to produce vehicle for re- inspection and as the vehicle is not produced they refused to pay the assessment value made by the surveyor.
4. The Forum below after going through the papers and hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay the amount of Rs. 42,400/- with the interest @ 9% p.a. from 26.03.2006. Forum also directed the appellant to pay Rs.3,000/- towards the mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards the cost.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order Insurance Company came in appeal.
6. Notice was issued to the respondent. Learned counsel Shri. S.N. Lavekar, appeared on behalf of respondent. We heard learned counsel Shri. Himanshu Patankar holding for Shri. V. N. Upadhye for the appellant and Shri. S.N. Lavekar, for the respondent. The appellant has come with the application for condonation of the delay. Delay caused is shown 26 days. Delay is properly explained. We condone the delay.
7. We perused the papers and gave our anxious thoughts to the argument advanced by both the counsels. There is no dispute that, the vehicle in question had been insured with the present appellant. There is also no dispute that, the accident in question had taken place during the currency of the policy. There is also no dispute that, the appellant had appointed surveyor, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.42,400/-. The loss assessed by the surveyor had been appraised by the present appellant only. The claim was rejected by the appellant on the ground that, the vehicle in question was not reproduced for re-inspection. The complainant himself has come with the case as he was in financial crisis he was forced to sale the vehicle in question and thus, he could not produce the vehicle in question for re-inspection. The loss assessed to the tune of Rs.42,400/- by the surveyor had been appraised by the present appellant. There was no question of asking the appellant to produce the vehicle for inspection. The Forum has considered this aspect in right perspective and rightly allowed the complaint. We are not inclined to interfere the order passed by the Forum. Appeal is dismissed summarily.
Sd/- sd/-
(Mrs. Uma S. Bora) (S. G. Deshmukh) Member Presiding Judicial Member Kalyankar