Atul Kumar vs National Insurance Company 3 Ors.

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 29.04.2016, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 61/2016, "Atul Kumar Gupta versus National Insurance Co. & Ors.", vide which, while partly allowing the said appeal, the order dated 29.12.2015, passed by the District Forum Bhiwani in consumer complaint no. 31/2011, filed by the present petitioner, allowing the said complaint, was modified.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant is the owner of a Tata 1109 truck, bearing registration no. HR61 4853, which was insured with the opposite party (OP), the National Insurance Co. for the period 30.06.2006 to 29.06.2007. The said truck met with an accident on 22.12.2006 and suffered damage. Upon intimation, the Insurance Company deputed a surveyor who submitted his report on 26.12.2006. On the other hand, the petitioner/complainant got an estimate prepared for the repair of the vehicle, which was to the tune of Rs. 2,34,000/-. The complainant requested the Insurance Company to pay the claim as per the said assessment. However, since the claim was not paid, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, which was decided on 06.07.2010 and as per the order passed by the said Forum, the complainant was directed to submit documents to the Insurance Company within 15 days of the receipt of certified copy of the order of the Forum and the OP Insurance Company was directed to settle the claim within two months of the receipt of such documents. The Insurance Company settled the claim at Rs. 34,950/- and a cheque for the said amount was sent to the complainant at his home address. However, the complainant represented to the Insurance Company to pay him the entire amount of Rs. 2,34,200/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. from the date of the complaint till realisation. Since the Insurance Company did not accede to his request, the consumer complaint no. 31/2011 was filed before the District Forum, seeking directions to the Insurance Company to release the amount of Rs. 2,34,200/- after deducting a sum of Rs. 34,950/-, which had already been received by the complainant from the Insurance Company, alongwith interest @24% p.a. from the date of institution of the complaint. A further sum of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation and more compensation on various grounds was also demanded.

The complaint was resisted by the Insurance Company by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they submitted that the complainant had not submitted the requisite documents to the insurance company. The said company had rightly decided the claim, based on the documents submitted before them and keeping in view the report of the surveyor appointed by them. The District Forum vide their order dated 03.06.2014, dismissed the said complaint, saying that they had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as no cause of action, wholly or in part, had arisen in District Bhiwani. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the complainant challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission. Vide order dated 04.02.2015, the said appeal was accepted and the matter was remanded to the District Forum Bhiwani to decide the complaint afresh, in accordance with law.

On remand, the District Forum, after considering the averments of the parties, allowed the consumer complaint vide their order dated 29.12.2015, in which they stated that the surveyor had assessed the total loss as Rs. 1,48,835/- less salvage value of Rs. 8,835/-, out of which Rs. 1,04,600/- had been assessed as loss for the cabin of the vehicle. The Insurance Company had not made payment for the loss of cabin on the ground that proper bills for the cabin had not been presented before them. The District Forum partly allowed the consumer complaint and directed the OP Insurance Company to pay 75% of the assessed loss of Rs. 1,04,600/- on non-standard basis. Accordingly, the District Forum directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 78,400/- to the complainant within 60 days of passing of the order, failing which, the Insurance Company was asked to pay interest @6% p.a. as well. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the complainant challenged the same by way of first appeal no. 61/2016 before the State Commission. The State Commission vide impugned order dated 29.04.2016, directed that the complainant was liable to pay full value of the loss as assessed by the surveyor, which was Rs. 1,40,000/-. Since a sum of Rs. 34,950/- had already been paid, the balance amount of Rs. 1,05,050/- should be paid by the Insurance Company to the complainant. A compensation of Rs. 10,000/- was also awarded to be paid to the complainant. Being aggrieved against the said order of the State Commission, the complainant has challenged the same by way of the present revision petition, although the Insurance Company have not agitated the matter further, meaning thereby that they accepted the order passed by the State Commission.

During arguments, it was averred by the authorised representative of the petitioner that proper survey had not been conducted by the surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company and the said survey was done in their absence. The authorised representative stated that till 08.01.2017, they had spent a total sum of Rs. 6,59,760/- including an amount of Rs. 4 lakh as litigation expenses before the Consumer Fora at various levels. After adding a sum of Rs. 18,65,518/- as interest and Rs. 3 lakh as compensation, the complainant was entitled to get a total amount of Rs. 28,25,278/- from the Insurance Company. The petitioner/complainant also filed his written submissions containing his arguments.

The learned counsel for the OP Insurance Company stated, however, that the order passed by the State Commission was in accordance with law and should be upheld.

We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

As borne out from the facts on record, the Insurance Company appointed a surveyor on receiving intimation about the damage to vehicle in question and the said surveyor after carrying out the survey, assessed the loss as Rs. 1,40,000/- after deducting the salvage charges. Out of this sum of Rs. 1,40,000/-, Rs. 1,04,600/- was assessed as loss to the cabin. The Insurance Company refused to pay the amount for damage to the cabin, saying that appropriate documents for the same had not been submitted. The District Forum, while deciding the consumer complaint, decided to grant 75% of the amount of loss assessed for the cabin. However, in appeal, the State Commission, decided vide impugned order that the entire amount as assessed by the surveyor should be paid to the complainant. In the grounds of the present revision petition as well as during arguments before us, the petitioner/complainant has not been able to pin-point any specific fault in the said report of the surveyor. The report has been relied upon by both the consumer fora below and there is no material to the contrary to disbelieve the report except the oral assertion of the complainant himself. It is held, therefore, that there is no infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the State Commission, by which the entire amount assessed by the surveyor, has been ordered to be paid to the complainant. We, therefore, do not find any justification to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission. The revision petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed and the impugned order passed by the State Commission is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.