Bhag Singh vs Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Bhag Singh against the order dated 24.10.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in First Appeal No.288 of 2016.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant insured his vehicle with the respondent and an amount of Rs.4,577/- was paid as premium. The policy was valid from 20.1.2010 to 19.1.2011. On 22.4.2010, the vehicle fell in a drain due to which it was damaged. The petitioner paid money for the repair of the car on different occasions. When the claim was made, he was paid only Rs.47,992/- on 8.9.2010. The complainant's case is that he was assured that the balance amount will be paid later but the same was not paid.

The complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Karnal, (in short the 'District Forum'), which was allowed vide its order dated 27.01.2016 as follows:-

"11. As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party to make the payment of Rs.1,17,844/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 15.2.2011 till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- for the mental agony and harassment caused to him and for the litigation expenses. The opposite party shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance."

Aggrieved with the above order of the District Forum, the opposite party/respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission passed the following order:-

"9. In the case in hand, the complaint has not been able to produce any evidence to show that there was misrepresentation, fraud or coercion on the part of the Insurance Company in paying the amount of Rs.47,992/-, rather, the amount was received by him with free consent. The District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint and as such the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain.

For the reasons recorded supra, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed."

Hence, the present revision petition.

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the vehicle had fallen into a drain and was badly damaged. The repair cost of the vehicle was Rs.90,863/-, however, the Insurance Company has paid only Rs.47,992/-. The District Forum had allowed the actual claim of the complainant after being satisfied about all the repairs work and about the bills of repairs. The State Commission, however allowed the appeal of the Insurance Company and set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. The learned counsel argued that there is no bar in filing the complaint for additional amount even after accepting the part payment of the insurance claim. The State Commission has considered the signing of the voucher as acceptance and full and final payment with satisfaction. It was stated that the part payment was accepted on the financial grounds. The State Commission has rejected the claim of the additional amount on the ground that no fraud or coercion has been alleged by the complainant against the Insurance Company. If a party accepts the part payment by way of signing of the voucher due to financial crises, it is also one type of coercion because if the part payment is not accepted, the matter will be delayed further by the Insurance Company and the financial condition of the party will go from bad to worse.

On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company stated that the petitioner has signed the voucher without any protest, which is proof of full and final payment. It is wrong to say that the petitioner was given any assurance that this was the part payment and balance will be paid later. The payment released by the Insurance Company is based on the surveyor's report and the complainant has not made any allegation against the surveyor or pointed out any shortcoming in the surveyor's report.

Learned counsel argued that the complainant has not alleged any fraud or coercion as a result of which the voucher has been signed. The case cannot be reopened on any other ground. Thus, order of the State Commission is perfectly justified and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the material on record. It is a fact that the complainant has accepted Rs.47,992/- by way of signing of the voucher without any protest. No fraud or coercion has been alleged against the Insurance Company or against the surveyor, therefore, the protest made by the complainant cannot be said to be primafacie justified. Otherwise also, Insurance Company is bound to settle the insurance claim on the basis of the surveyor's report, if the surveyor's report is accepted by them. The surveyors are appointed under the Insurance Act, 1938 and their report is an important document which forms the basis for settlement of the insurance claim. Obviously, the complainant, even after accepting the payment by signing of the voucher can file the complaint if the complainant has some grievance against the surveyor's report. In the present case, the complainant has failed to prove any fraud or coercion by the Insurance Company or by the surveyor. The complainant has also failed in giving any reason for not accepting the surveyor's report by mentioning any shortcoming in that report or otherwise. There are certain principles of surveying an accidental vehicle and the surveyor seems to have followed the same in arriving at the net total value of assessment of loss. The surveyor has assessed the net loss as Rs.51,117/-. The surveyor has also mentioned in his final report the following:-

RE-INSPECTION

The aforesaid vehicle was also inspected by the undersigned after its repairs and replacements alongwith salvage. After thorough inspection of the vehicle and going through my final survey report it was observed that all the repairs and replacements have been carried out accordingly and satisfactorily as per the above assessment and the vehicle was found in quite good road worth condition."

From the above, it is clear that all the repairs carried out on the vehicle have been seen and assessed by the surveyor. Hence, the assertion of the petitioner/complainant that some of the repair works have not been considered by the surveyor is not substantiated from the report of the surveyor.

As the petitioner has not been able to tell any shortcoming in the surveyor's report, the same cannot be rejected and the insurance claim has to be settled on the basis of the report of the surveyor. The surveyor has allowed Rs.51,117/-, whereas the Insurance Company paid Rs.47,992/-. The Insurance company should have paid Rs.51,117/-. Accordingly, the Insurance Company is liable to pay Rs.3,125/- (rupees three thousand one hundred twenty five only).

Based on the above discussion, I do not find any force in the present revision petition. However, the Insurance Company has to pay Rs.3,125/- (rupees three thousand one hundred twenty five only) more to the petitioner/complainant on the basis of the surveyor's report. Accordingly, the respondent/Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.3,125/- to the petitioner/complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

The revision petition No.2905 of 2017 stands disposed of.