National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Deen Dayal Chamoli vs National Insurance Co. on 23 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: IV(2006)CPJ86(NC)
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1.This revision is directed against the order dated 24.2.2003 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttaranchal, Dehradun modifying the order dated 29.7.2002 of a District Forum and directing the respondent No. 1/O.P. No. 1 Insurance Company to pay amount of Rs. 71,000 with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e., 6.7.2001, to the petitioner/complainant.
2. Vehicle No. UP-08-3180 belonging to petitioner was insured for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 with respondent No. 1 for the period from 3.3.2000 to 2.3.2001. On 29.4.2000 the vehicle fell into a gorge which was 500 mtr. deep and was badly damaged. On being intimated of damage, the respondent No. 1 appointed Bhupender Singh as Surveyor to assess the loss. Report dated 4.10.2000 submitted by the Surveyor notices that the driver of vehicle was not having a valid driving licence inasmuch as the licence did not bear the endorsement of Licensing Authority permitting the driver to drive vehicle on hill routes. Claim made by the petitioner was repudiated on that ground by the respondent/Insurance Company. Thereafter, complaint filed by the petitioner alleging deficiency in service on part of Insurance Company, was contested by. respondent No. 1 by filing written version. For deciding this revision the plea raised in written version need not be referred to District Forum allowed the complaint with direction to respondent No. 1 to pay the insured amount of Rs. 1,50,000 with interest © 8% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till realisation and Rs. 500 as costs, which order was modified by the State Commission in the manner noticed above.
3. Contention advanced by Mr. K.C. Pahuja for petitioner was that to drive a vehicle in hilly area no endorsement on driving licence from the Licensing Authority is required. However, this contention need not be examined on merit as the amount of Rs. 71,000 was awarded by the State Commission based on the survey report dated 4.10.2000 on total loss basis and the petitioner having consented to the fixation of market value of vehicle after accident at Rs. one lakh and that of salvage at Rs. 27,500. Discussion under the heading "Assessment of Loss on Total Loss Basis" in the said report dated 4.10.2000 would show that the market value of vehicle after accident was assessed at Rs. one lakh and after deducting amount of Rs. 1,500 there from towards Excess Clause, the net value assessed was Rs. 98,500. Further, the petitioner had agreed to retain the salvage for an amount of Rs. 27,500. Thus, the amount payable on total loss basis after deduction of salvage was reached at Rs. 71,000. Petitioner seems to have not filed any objection against the Surveyor's report. Surveyor was appointed under Section 64UM of the Insurance Act by respondent No. 1. Surveyor's report being valuable piece of evidence and there being the objections to it by the petitioner, the State Commission had rightly modified the order of District Forum for payment of aforesaid amount of Rs. 71,000. Order under challenge does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed. No order to cost.