National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Suresh Kumar Sharma on 18 January, 2021
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1175 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 03/02/2017 in Appeal No. 600/2013 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. SURESH KUMAR SHARMA S/O. SH. KALYAN SAHAI SHARMA, R/O. I-195, AZAD NAGAR BHILWARA RAJASHTAN ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, S.K. PLAZA, PUR ROAD, BHILWARA RAJASTHAN ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 3981 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 03/02/2017 in Appeal No. 600/2013 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AT SEAWOODS GRAND CENTRAL F WINGH 8TH FLOOR, PLOT NO R-1, SECTOR -40, SEAWOODS NERUL, NAVI MUMBAI - 400706 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SURESH KUMAR SHARMA W/O LATE NARAYAN TANDON, POST PALOUD THANA MANDRI HASOUD RAIPUR CHATTISGARH - 492101 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. C. VISWANATH,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : For the Respondent :
Dated : 18 Jan 2021 ORDER
RP/1175/2017
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nimit Mathur, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Amreeta Swarup, Advocate
RP/3981/2017
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amreeta Swarup, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Nimit Mathur, Advocate
ORDER
1. Revision Petition No.1175/2017 has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant and Revision Petition No.3981/2017 has been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party against the order dated 03.02.2017 in First Appeal No.600/2013 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (for short "the State Commission").
2. Case of the Complainant is that the Complainant got his Honda City Car bearing registration No.RJ-06-CB-6381 insured with the Opposite Party/Insurance Company, vide Policy No.242400/31/2012/000243 valid from 06.04.2011 to 05.04.2012 for a sum of Rs.7,60,000/-, by paying premium amount of Rs.17,788/-. On the night of 11.04.2011 the car met with an accident within the limits of Police Station Mandal, District Bahilwara, when a vehicle came on wrong side, without giving light. The vehicle fled after hitting and badly damaging the car of the Complainant. The vehicle was taken to authorized dealer, Jaipur Pink City Motors Pvt. Ltd. for repair. As the Complainant suffered minor injuries and no other person was injured in the accident, FIR was not registered. Intimation of the accident was given to the Opposite Party immediately. Authorised dealer issued estimate for repair of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.8,84,079/-, as the vehicle was totally damaged. The Complainant filed Insurance Claim before the Opposite Party for Rs.7,60,000/-, being IDV of the vehicle. Opposite Party sent a letter to the Complainant for settlement of the claim at Rs.2,93,000/-. Complainant replied, vide letter dated 09.02.2012, to the Opposite Party seeking payment of IDV value of the vehicle i.e. Rs.7,60,000/-, but the Opposite Party did not settle the claim within the prescribed time. Therefore, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint before the District Forum with following prayer: -
"1. That as the vehicle of complainant damaged totally, the complainant be allowed Rs.7,60,000/- being IDV Value of service with interest @ 18% per annum till payment from the respondent insurance company.
2. That Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for physical and mental agony be allowed to the complainant from respondent Insurance Company.
3. That totally damaged vehicle of complainant is lying at Pink City Motors Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur and parking charges for the same @ Rs.100/- per day till payment of claim amount be allowed separately.
4. That the cost of case with Advocate's fee be allowed.
5. That any other relief for which complainant is legally entitled be allowed to the complainant from respondent Insurance Company."
3. Complaint was contested by the Opposite Party by filing written statement. It was stated that on receiving intimation, Mr. K.C. Sharma, Surveyor was appointed immediately, who found that the vehicle was not having more than 70% damage and the vehicle did not come under the category of total loss. The vehicle was repairable at a cost of Rs.2,96,446.99/-. An amount of Rs.2,96,446.99 towards repair was offered to the Complainant, which he refused to accept. The Complainant violated the terms & conditions of the agreement, therefore this Complaint is triable by the Civil Court, and not maintainable in the Consumer Forum. There are complicated questions involved in this matter, which can be decided only by the Civil Court and the Complaint is not maintainable in the Consumer Forum.
4. It is relevant to mention that another Complaint being CC/165/2012 was also filed by Ridhi Sidhi Eco Logistic Pvt. Ltd. for separate cause of action. The District Forum, however, clubbed both the Complaints together and after hearing Learned Counsel for the Parties and going through the record, dismissed both the Complaints as not maintainable by a common order dated 27.05.2013, with following observation: -
"As such, these complaints filed by complainants against respondent are rejected and each of the complaints is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand)."
5. Ridhi Sidhi Eco Logistic Pvt. Ltd. did not file any Appeal against the order of the District Forum. However, the Complainant (Petitioner in RP/1175/2017) filed an Appeal before the State Commission. State Commission allowed the Appeal directing the Opposite Party/Insurance Company to make payment of the claim assessed by the Surveyor alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of presentation of the complaint, with cost of Rs.11,000/-.
6. Aggrieved by the impugned order, Complainant as well as Opposite Party/Insurance Company have filed cross Revision Petitions before this Commission.
7. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties and carefully perused the record. Learned Counsel for the Complainant contended that the State Commission had erred in allowing the Complaint on the basis of Surveyor Report, in spite of the fact that there was total damage to the car and the Complainant had produced estimate to that effect, issued by Pink City Honda. He further submitted that the Survey Report dated 01.07.2011 was arbitrary and erroneous as the Surveyor had deliberately undervalued the loss suffered by the Complainant. It was also submitted that the Surveyor had assessed the depreciated value of the parts at Rs.4,79,862/- without any detail or reasons.
8. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Surveyor assessed damage to the vehicle as less than 70% and an amount of Rs.2,96,446.99/- was offered to the Complainant for repair which the Complainant refused to accept. He submitted that the Respondent/Opposite Party was still ready and willing to pay this amount to the Petitioner. There are complicated questions involved in this matter, which can be decided only by the Civil Court and the Complaint is not maintainable in the Consumer Forum.
9. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the Petitioner/Complainant got his car insured with the Respondent for a sum of Rs.7,60,000/-, from 06.04.2011 to 05.04.2012. On the night of 11.04.2011, the car met with an accident. It was taken to Jaipur Pink City Motors Pvt. Ltd, an authorised dealer, who estimated the cost of repair at Rs.8,84,079/-, as the vehicle was totally damaged. The Petitioner filed insurance claim before the Opposite Party for Rs.7,60,000/-, being IDV of the vehicle. As the Surveyor appointed by the Respondent estimated the repair cost at Rs.2,96,446.99, the Respondent offered Rs.2,96,446.99 to the Petitioner, which was not accepted and the Petitioner filed Complaint before the District Forum.
10. Regarding maintainability of the Complaint, Learned Counsel for the Respondent contended that complicated questions are involved and the matter pertains to compliance of agreement and terms & conditions of the Insurance Policy, which are triable by a Civil Court. He also stated that Complainant/Respondent has not stated anywhere as to what complications are involved in this matter. Further, it has been held by this Commission in Harsolia Motors v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. I, (2005) CPJ 27 (NC) decided on 03.12.2004 that since an Insurance Policy is taken for reimbursement or for indemnity of the loss which may be suffered on account of insured perils, the services of the insurer cannot be said to have been hired or availed for a commercial purpose. This Commission does possess the requisite jurisdiction to entertain a Consumer Complaint wherever a defect or deficiency in the services rendered by an insurer is made out. In view of the above, the Complaint is held maintainable.
11. Main issue relates to the quantum of loss. Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,96,446.99 and the Complainant filed claim for Rs.7,60,000/-, on the basis of estimate given by Pink City Motors Pvt. Ltd. Surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company, who visited and inspected the place of incident and thereafter gave his report. Report submitted by a Surveyor is an important piece of evidence and it has to be given due weight, though it is not sacrosanct and can be ignored, provided there is cogent evidence otherwise. In the present case, the Complainant did not lead any evidence disproving the report submitted by the Surveyor of the Insurance Company. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the report submitted by the Surveyor of the Insurance Company is to be accepted. Whatever relief the Complainant was entitled, has already been given by the State Commission.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that the State Commission had correctly relied on the report of the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company and allowed the claim to the tune of Rs.2,96,446.99. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Both Revision Petitions are hereby dismissed.
...................... C. VISWANATH PRESIDING MEMBER