State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Ins. Co Ltd.,Laxmi Kanwar vs Laxmi Kanwar ,National Ins. Co Ltd., on 16 September, 2009
Appeal No.570/09 National Insurance Co.Ltd. & anr. V. Laxmi Kanwar Rajawat Appeal No.746/09 Laxmi Kanwar Rajawat V. National Insurance Co.Ltd.& anr. Before Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member
Shri Sanjeev Arora,counsel for the appellant insurance company Shri Ajay Tantia,counsel for the complainant respondent Date of Judgement: 16.9.09 BY THE STATE COMMISSION:
The abovementioned two appeals have been decided by this common judgement as both have been preferred against the order dated 5.3.09 passed by the District Forum,Camp Jaipur in complaint no.126/09(318/07 of District Forum-II,Jaipur).
Appeal No.570/09 This appeal has been filed by the appellants insurance company against the order dated 5.3.09 passed by the District Forum, Camp Jaipur in complaint no.126/09(318/07),by which the complaint of the complainant respondent was allowed against the appellants insurance company in the manner that the 2 appellants insurance company were directed to pay Rs.2,25,000/- to the complainant respondent with interest @ 9% p.a wef 28.3.07 and further to pay Rs.2000/- as amount of compensation and Rs.1000/- as amount of cost of litigation.
It arises in the following circumstances:
That the complainant respondent had filed a complaint against the appellants insurance company before the District Forum-II,Jaipur on 20.2.2007 interalia stating that the Ambassador car with AC bearing registration no.RJ.14-TA-0195(taxi quota) was got insured with the appellants insurance company for the period 11.5.05 to 10.5.06 for a sum of Rs.4,13,563/-. It was further stated in the complaint that the said car had met with an accident as on 9.4.06 a canter had caused accident with the car of the complainant respondent, as a result of which the car was severely damaged and a report of the incident was lodged with the policce station,Bawal,District Rewari bearing FIR no.53/06, copy is marked as annex.3. It was further stated in the complaint that information of that incident was given by the complainant respondent to the office of the appellants insurance company and a surveyor was appointed and in that accident important parts of the car such as gear box,shockar were damaged totally and estimate was got prepared for the repair of that car from Shri Krsna Motors,Jaipur and that was to the tune of Rs.4,80,821/-,but the surveyor appointed by the appellants insurance company,Shri R.K.Sharma in his report dated 21.5.06 had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,78,680/- that was not justified at all, as the surveyor had himself put a mark of questions on some items and since that parts were not taken into consideration while assessing the loss,therefore,the survey report in question could not be said to 3 be a justified one and thus the complaint was filed for claiming Rs.5,17,137/-.
A reply was filed on behalf of the appellants insurance company before the District Forum on 20.7.07 and in the reply the main case of the appellants insurance company was that the amount as assessed by the surveyor,Shri R.K.Sharma to the tune of Rs.1,78,680/- was just and proper and thus claiming of Rs.5,17,137/- was not justified at all.
The District Forum after hearing both the parties through the impugned order dated 5.3.09 had allowed the complaint of the complainant respondent as stated above,interalia holding that apart from the amount of Rs.1,78,680/-,which was assessed by the surveyor,the complainant respondent is entitled to the amount of those parts which were question marked by the surveyor Shri Sharma in his report and thus the amount of the question marked parts was found Rs.16,000/- and that was ordered to be paid by the appellants insurance company to the complainant respondent and since the car in question was totally damaged and to put the engine into working condition after making repair,therefore, for that a sum of Rs.30,320/- were further added,thus in all a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- were ordered to be paid by the appellants insurance company to the complainant respondent.
Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the appellants insurance company.
In this appeal, the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants insurance company is that awarding of Rs.16,000/- and Rs.30320/- was not justified and to that extent appeal be allowed.
4On the other hand,the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In this case a bare perusal of the photographs of the ambassador car on file shows that the engine of the car was badly damaged due to that accident.
Further a bare perusal of the survey report of Shri R.K.Sharma dated 21.5.06 reveals that in survey report the following items:
39Front Suspension kit,43 Lower Arm rear, 48 Eleet.Fan 82 Caliper assy and similarly item no. 83 were question marked and if the District Forum had awarded the amounts mentioned against them, it had not committed any illegality in passing that order.
It may further be stated here that as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Insurance Company Ltd.V. Pradeep Kumar reported in (2009) ACJ 1729,the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the survey report is not the last and final word for the assessment. From that point of view also the impugned order could not be said to be suffering from any illegality.
When the engine of the car was totally damaged and if a sum of Rs.30,320/- was awarded more to the complainant respondent by the District Forum for that it could not be said that the District Forum had committed any illegality in awarding that amount specially when on file there is a survey report of Shri 5 Ajay K.Jain,a private surveyor who had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.3,20,000/- and further the authorised dealer of the Ambassador car,M/s Shri Krsna Motors had also estimated the loss more than as assessed by the surveyor.
When this being the position,the findings of the District Forum are liable to be confirmed one as they are based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and they do not suffer from any basic infirmity,illegality or perversity and thus this appeal deserves to be dismissed.
For reasons as stated above,this appeal filed by the appellants insurance company is dismissed.
Appeal No.746/09 This appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant for enhancement of the amount.
While deciding appeal no.570/09 filed by the appellants insurance company since the amount in question as ordered by the District Forum in the impugned order dated 5.3.09 has been found just and proper,therefore,this appeal of the complainant appellant for more amount could not survive and the same deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed.
Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Member President