G.R.SHARMA vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd

THIS appeal is against the order of District Forum, Panaji dated 7.1.1993 passed in Complaint No.186 of 1991. The complainant Shri G.R. Sharma, advocate, had filed a complaint before the District Forum claiming deficiency in service of O.P. in not settling his insurance claim. The District Forum by an order dated 16.3.1992 allowed the complaint and ordered the O.P. to pay the complainant Rs. 20,201.00 with 18% interest as compensation for his insurance claim. In Appeal No.15 of 1992, this Commission while deciding the appeal filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited had allowed the appeal and remanded back the complaint to District Forum for a fresh decision. THIS Commission in the aforesaid order had directed the District Forum to clarify whether 15% and 50% deductions for metal parts and rubber parts were justified? It was mentioned in the survey report about the deductions of metal and rubber parts from the estimated loss of vehicle. It was also contended in the appeal by the Insurance Company that receipts produced by complainant showing purchase of spare parts for repairing the vehicle were not genuine. In any case, purpose of remand was to find out where the estimated loss arrived at by the surveyor was correct or not.

AFTER the remand of Mr. Sharma''s complaint, District Forum dismissed the complaint for want of necessary evidence and referred the complainant to seek his remedy before the Arbitrator as provided in the Insurance Policy. We have heard the appellant in person and Mr. E. Afonso, advocate for respondent. After hearing the arguments of both the sides on 6.4.93, we decided to refer the matter to the Arbitrator as suggested by the Insurance Company and the appellant and was fixed on 7.4.1993 for suggesting names of Arbitrators. On 7.4.1993, both the leaned advocates agreed to decide the matter without referring the same to the Arbitrator.

We have carefully gone through the records and arguments advanced by both the sides. We find the Insurance Company had approved 23.8.1991 together with voucher. According to Insurance Co. complainant did not return the voucher duly signed and, therefore, complainant''s claim could not be settled. Thus, there has been admission on record in para 10 of the written version of O.P. Despite this admission, District Forum dismissed the complaint without going through the record of case. It, therefore, clearly appears that District Forum did not apply its mind to the facts of case and dismissed complainant''s claim on extraneous, irrelevant and untenable grounds.

COMPLAINANT''s claim in his complaint is that his car was involved in an accident on 25.6.1991. He had lodged his insurance claim with O.P. estimating his loss of Rs. 20,201.00 on the basis of oral instructions from O.P. The complainant has filed cash memos showing purchase of spare parts for the repairs of his vehicle. The complainant, further, claimed Rs. 75,000.00 on account of professional loss and mental torture. In reply, O.P. admitted the incident and also admitted in para 5 of the written version for replacement of bonet assembly, front side bumber, front grill, left side mudguard and left side head light assembly. Similarly, radiator was also allowed and replaced. However, O.P. had denied the genuineness of other receipts and other spare parts which the complainant claims to have purchased for repairs of his car. There is serious dispute as regards rest of the claim of complainant for purchase of metal parts. The complainant had also claimed new battery which was found undamaged and, therefore, was not allowed. The main dispute is in regards receipts collectively marked as OP-3 dated 6.7.1991. All the receipts are of the same date purported to show the purchase. According to O.P. Vishwakarma Garage is not in existence and that all these bills are fake. The complainant was, therefore, -allowed to prove genuineness of his documents for which the case was remanded to the District Forum. But we found that the complainant did not tender any evidence to prove those receipts. The District Forum has observed that after giving opportunity to the complainant, he has not chosen to produce necessary evidence and, therefore, rejected complainant''s claim. It appears that District Forum mechanically rejected the complaint although part of the claim was admitted by the Insurance Company. Therefore, even though the complainant has not tendered any evidence as regards admitted claim by the O.P., there is no necessity of referring any evidence by the complainant. As such, we find that the Insurance Company has admitted claim of the complainant for bonet assembly, front side bumber, front grill, left side mudguard, left side head light assembly and the radiator.

ON perusal, we find from the records that there is cash memo dated 6.7.1992 showing the purchase of aforesaid parts for the amount of Rs.8368.75 and there is stamped receipt to have paid the money to the shopkeeper. In our view, the O.P. has admitted and approved the claim of the complainant for the parts mentioned in these receipts for replacement. It is, therefore, clear to accept claim of the complainant for payment of Rs. 8368.75 for replacement of parts mentioned therein. In absence of proper evidence and other receipts filed by the complainant which are not properly proved, it is difficult for us to accept claim of the complainant. Similarly, complainant has claimed loss of professional income for want of motor vehicle. According to complainant, motor vehicle was not available to him, and, therefore, he suffered professional loss, mental torture and harassment. No proper evidence has been placed on record to justify the grounds of compensation of Rs. 75,000.00 and, therefore, we are not prepared to accept complainant''s claim on compensation for Rs. 75,000.00. However, it is true that for a period of few days, the complainant was deprieved of the use of his motor car and was not due to negligence on the part of O.P. but also time was required to repair the car. Complainant can claim reasonable claim for the delay in settlement of his insurance claim. Considering the delay in settlement of complainant''s claim, we find that the incident occurred on 25.6.1991 and the complaint was filed before the District Forum on 2.9.1991 i.e. within less than three months period. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find that there is inordinate delay on the part of O.P. to settle complainant''s claim. Rest of the claim of complainant is rejected for want of proper proof. Hence we pass the following: ORDER The appeal is partly allowed. The O.P., Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Panaji - Goa is directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 8368.75 towards repairs of parts together with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of complainant to District Forum. Appeal partly allowed.