State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Senior Divisional Manager, M/S ... vs 1. Mrs. Manajubala Nath, House No.47 ... on 25 February, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA: CUTTACK FIRST APPEAL NO.681 OF 2007 From an order dated 18.07.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in C.D. Case No.298 of 2003 Senior Divisional Manager, M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd., 794, Saheed Nagar, Janpath, Bhubaneswar-751 007 ... Appellant -Versus- 1. Mrs. Manajubala Nath, House No.47 (Kartabya), Basanta Vihar Colony, Tankaapani Road, Brahameswar Patna, Bhubaneswar 2. Proprietor, M/s Automech, Bomikhal Chhak, Cuttack Road, Bhubaneswar 3. Proprietor, Singh Refrigeration & Electrical Works, Shop No.12, Bipani Market Compolex, Sailashree Vihar, Bhubaneswar 4. Proprietor, Indo-Japan Motors N.H. 5, Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar ... Respondents For the Appellant : Mr. B.N. Udgata & Associates For Respondent No.1 : Mr. S.K. Pattnaik & Associates For Respondents 2 to 4 : N o n e P R E S E N T : THE HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SAMANTARAY, PRESIDENT, AND SHRIMATI BASANTI DEVI, MEMBER O R D E R
DATE:- The November, 2009.
Justice A.K. Samantaray, President.
This is an appeal by the National Insurance Company Ltd. assailing the validity of the judgment and order of the District Forum, Khurda at Bhubaneswar dated 18.07.2007 passed in C.D. Case No.298 of 2003. By the impugned order, the District Forum has directed the appellant-Insurance Company, who was the opposite party before it, to pay Rs.20,935/- to the complainant-respondent towards insurance claim, Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation. The entire sum of Rs.23,935/- has been directed to be paid within a month from the date of communication of the order, failing which the amount was to carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum till the date of payment.
2. The fact of the complaint is that the complainant is the owner of a Tata Indica car bearing registration number OR-02-0757, which was comprehensively insured with the appellant-opposite party no.1-Insurance Company for the period from 11.02.2003 to 10.02.2004 for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-. The vehicle met with an accident on 05.04.2003, as a result of which the front portion of the car was damaged and the left side body was scratched. The AC condenser was pushed inside and damaged, which was detected at Bharat Motors Ltd., the dealer of the car from whom the complainant had purchased the same. Bharat Motors advised for repair of the vehicle and the cost of repair was assessed at Rs.22,135/-, and the cost of the AC condenser was stated as Rs.6,665/-. However, since the complainant felt that the estimate of Bharat Motors was in the higher side, she decided to repair the vehicle by M/s Automech, Bomikhal, Cuttack Road, Bhubaneswar-opposite party no.2-respondent no.2, who estimated the entire repair cost at Rs.20,935/- which included the cost of the AC condenser. The complainant got the car repaired and intimated the fact to appellant no.1-Insurance Company. The AC condenser was replaced through M/s Singh Refrigeration & Electrical Works, Sailashree Vihar, Bhubaneswar-opposite party no.3 -respondent no.3. After the matter was reported to the Insurance Company, a surveyor was deputed and the opposite party-Insurance Company wanted to settle the claim at Rs.2,150/-. It issued a letter in that regard and requested the complainant to execute the discharge voucher. But the complainant refused to accept the offer and filed the consumer complaint claiming a sum of Rs.20,935/- with interest and also praying for payment of compensation and litigation cost.
3. After receipt of notice, the Insurance Company-opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written version stating therein that the claim of the complainant is false and fabricated. M/s Bharat Motors is the authorized dealer of Tata Indica car, who estimated the cost of spare parts and repair charge, as per Annexure-1, excluding the cost of the AC condenser. But the complainant did not get the vehicle repaired by the authorized dealer, wherefrom she had purchased the same, and took it to another garage, i.e., the garage of opposite party no.2. It is stated by the Insurance Company that had the vehicle been repaired at the workshop of the authorized dealer, the Company had no reason to hesitate in making payment of the repair cost assessed by the said authorized dealer. The fact that the complainant preferred to get the vehicle repaired through opposite party no.2 shows her evil intention of getting a fabricated estimate, false bills, etc. The surveyor assessed the damage to the vehicle and allowed the claim of Rs.2,150/-, which was offered to the complainant, but it was not accepted by her. It has been categorically stated by opposite party no.1-Insurance Company that the complainant is not entitled to receive anything more that what the surveyor had assessed and the Company had offered. It is also stated that there was absolutely no damage to the AC condenser, and a false claim has been made by the complainant.
4. Opposite party no.2 admitted that it had repaired the vehicle at its workshop, and the AC condenser was repaired by opposite party no.3. However, opposite party no.3 has stated to have replaced the AC condenser in its workshop. Opposite party no.4 has denied in its written version that it was ever approached by the complainant for repair of the AC condenser. It is stated that it had never sold any part of the AC condenser to the complainant.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and the complainant-respondent no.1 and have perused the impugned judgment and order. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that it was a minor accident of a bicycle dashing against the car and there were only scratches on the body of the car. The surveyor and loss assessor has rightly assessed the amount at Rs.2, 150/-, which should not have been disturbed by the District Forum. It was pointed out that the complainant herself had made claim stating that the date of accident was 07.03.2003 in the original claim form, but she has in the complaint petition stated that the accident occurred on 0-5.04. This is not a small discrepancy. But the District Forum has brushed aside this discrepancy by stating that it is a discrepancy as to the date, which should not be given any importance. As it appears from the report of the surveyor, the accident was on 07.03.2003. Apart from that, there is material on record to show that it was only after the vehicle was dismantled and repaired that the Insurance Company was informed about the alleged accident. Mr. Udgata, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, took us through the photographs of the vehicle taken by the assessor. He also placed the report of the assessor before us for perusal. We find that the report is a genuine one and the complainant, in order to make illegal gain out of the so-called accident, has manipulated things and filed the complaint alleging negligence and deficiency in service, which, in our view, is nothing but false and fabricated, as has been stated in the written version. It is true and we have verified and found that although the accident as alleged took place on 07.03.2003, the claim form was filed on 08.04.2003 and in the meantime the complainant had contacted different garages like Bharat Motors, Automech, etc. This, it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, was done with the motive of false and fabricated bills regarding the repair and intentionally the claim form was filed with opposite party no.1 and on the very next date of receipt of the claim form, the independent surveyor and loss assessor was deputed, who made survey not only on 09.04.2003 but also on 10.04.2003 consecutively and has, with cogent reasons given in his survey report, opined that if according to the complainant a cyclist suddenly came in front of the vehicle and the bicycle was turned to the left to save the cyclist, the scratch should have been there in the right side of the body including the door panel. But the scratch was found on the left side of the body, which is nothing but impossible, if actually the accident was of the nature as described. Referring to the photographs and the report of the surveyor, it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the surveyor has clearly mentioned that there was no impact of the accident, as described, on the vehicle. The surveyor has checked and cross-checked the internal components of the vehicle and found that the front cross member, radiator support were pressed back, but the dent was not consistent to the nature of the accident as the front bumper along with the front number plate had no sign of ay impact due to the accident, as described by the insured. We have found that the surveyor has mentioned that he had observed that there were some scratch marks in the left hand side body and door panels of the vehicle, which were not related to the nature of accident, as already noted above.
6. After a very careful reading of the surveyors report, the case of the complainant, her claim advanced and the written version of the Insurance Company-opposite party no.1, we have absolutely no doubt that the claim is not a genuine one and is deliberately made after lapse of one month without any intimation to the police after the so-called accident, just in order to make some illegal gain. The surveyor has rightly assessed the loss and the appellant-Insurance Company has asked the complainant to receive the amount as assessed by the surveyor. The learned District Forum, as we find, has not taken into account all these aspects. Specifically the surveyors report, which is a sacred document as it has been submitted by an independent loss assessor, who is a Mechanical Engineer, has not been dealt with by the District Forum and the Forum has ultimately arrived at an erroneous conclusion, which we cannot uphold.
7. In the result, therefore, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 18.07.2007 passed by the District Forum, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in C.D. Case No.298 of 2003 and direct the appellant-Insurance Company to make payment of Rs.2,150/- within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Records received from the District Forum may be sent back forthwith.
.....
(Justice A.K. Samantaray) President ..............................
(Basanti Devi) Member SCDRC, Orissa, Cuttack February ,2010/Nayak