AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
The complainant/respondent owned a vehicle which he had got insured with the petitioner company for the period from 04.03.2010 to 03.03.2011. The said vehicle allegedly met with an accident firstly on 29.04.2010 and then on 03.02.2011. The case of the complainant is that the first claim was registered vide claim no. 01543430 whereas the second claim was registered vide claim no. 01906636. No payment however, was made to the complainant despite the survey having been conducted by the surveyor appointed by the petitioner company. He therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint claiming a sum of Rs.13,84,000/- inclusive of monetary compensation and compensation for the mental agony and harassment.
The complaint was resisted by the petitioner company which inter-alia stated in its reply that after receiving the intimation of the alleged loss, they had registered claim no. 01906636 for the loss alleged by the complainant on 03.02.2011 and they had deputed Mr. Shyam Sunder Prasad as the surveyor who visited the spot and submitted a report. It was further stated in the reply that the complainant did not cooperate with the assessor since he did not produce the required documents. It was also stated in the reply that the assessor had assessed the loss at Rs.82,090/-. The complainant was asked by the insurer to submit documents such as tax token, route permit etc. which he failed to submit.
The District Forum, vide its order dated 31.05.2014, directed the insurer to pay a sum of Rs.9,24,000/- to the complainant with interest. Compensation quantified at Rs.6,000/- was also awarded to him.
Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the insurer approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Since there was a delay of about 180 days in filing the appeal, an application seeking condonation of the said delay was also filed. The State Commission, vide impugned order dated 17.08.2015, held that the delay had not been explained and therefore, no ground for condoning the delay was made out. The State Commission also examined the appeal on merits and found that the appeal lacked any merit. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner is before this Commission.
As far as the limitation is concerned, I need not delve much into the issue considering that the State Commission instead of dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation, also examined it on merits. The State Commission having examined the appeal on merits, the delay in institution of the appeal lost its significance. Hence, the delay in institution of the appeal before the State Commission is condoned subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- as cost to the complainant, within three months from today.
Coming to the merits of the case, as noted earlier, the case of the complainant is that the vehicle had met with an accident firstly on 29.04.2010 and then on 03.02.2011. I have carefully perused the Consumer Complaint. It has not been disclosed in the Consumer Complaint as to on which date the first claim i.e. the claim in respect of the accident which happened on 29.04.2010, was lodged with the insurer. Though two claim numbers have been given in the Consumer Complaint, the date on which the first claim was lodged, has not been disclosed in the complaint. The case of the insurer as disclosed in the written version to the Consumer Complaint appears to be that they had received claim only in respect of the accident which happened on 03.02.2011. However, the reply to the Consumer Complaint does not explain why two claims, one bearing number 01543430 and the other bearing no. 01906636 were registered. In the reply, the insurer did not even expressly allege that no intimation in respect of the accident which happened on 29.04.2010, was given to them and no claim in respect of the loss alleged to have been suffered by the complainant in the accident dated 29.04.2010 was lodged by them though it does appear from the written version to the Consumer Complaint that the surveyor was appointed by them pursuant to registration of claim number 01906636.
Be that as it may, what is important is that the vehicle in question was inspected by the surveyor on 07.02.2011 as recorded in his report dated 25.02.2011. The damages caused to the vehicle in the accident which happened on 29.04.2010 must be existing even on 06.02.2011, since this is not the case of the complainant that the damages which the vehicle suffered during the accident on 29.04.2010, were got repaired by him before inspection was carried out on 07.02.2011. The surveyor thus, was in a position to notice and examine all the damages suffered by the surveyor whether they were suffered in the accident which happened on 29.04.2010 or they were suffered in the accident which happened on 03.02.2011. The surveyor assessed the loss to the complainant at Rs.82,090/-. However, the complainant produced a large number of invoices before the concerned District Forum and he claimed as much as Rs.9,24,000/- towards re-imbursement in respect of the damages suffered by the vehicle. A perusal of the survey report would show that the complainant produced invoices of only Rs.16,800/- for the spare parts out of which, the surveyor allowed Rs.11,340/-. The report further shows that the complainant produced invoices of Rs.72,250/- towards labour charges. All those invoices were accepted by the surveyor. If the invoices filed by the complainant other than the invoices which he had produced before the surveyor were genuine and pertained to the expenditure incurred by him on this particular vehicle, there could be no reason for the complainant not to produce those invoices before the surveyor. The failure of the complainant, to produce such invoices before the surveyor, is a clear indicator that the invoices were procured at a later date. It would be pertinent to note here that the invoices were not filed with the Consumer Complain and there is no reference to those invoices in the said complaint. The vendors who purportedly issued those invoices, were not examined as witnesses nor did the complainant filed their affidavits in order to prove the invoices. In these circumstances, it would be difficult for me to accept the invoices other than those which were produced before the surveyor.
The complainant, as noticed earlier, produced invoices of Rs.16,800/- before the surveyor evidencing purchase of spare parts. I am inclined to allow the aforesaid amount to the complainant, thereby rejecting the deduction made by the surveyor. As far as the labour charges are concerned, surveyor has accepted all the invoices of Rs.72,250/- which the complainant had produced before the surveyor. The aggregate amount thus payable to the complainant, comes to Rs.16,800/- + Rs.72,250/- i.e. Rs.89,050/-. The complainant, in my opinion, is entitled to the aforesaid amount from the insurer.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned orders are modified to the extent that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.89,050/- to the complainant alongwith interest on that amount @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the Consumer Complaint till the date of payment. This would be in addition to the cost of Rs.20,000/- which the petitioner shall pay to the complainant for condonation of delay in institution of the appeal before the State Commission. If the cost of Rs.20,000/- is not paid within three months from today, this petition shall stand dismissed and the order passed by the fora below shall become executable forthwith. The payment of Rs.89,050/- with interest in terms of this order, shall also be made by the petitioner to the complainant within three months from today. The Revision Petition stands disposed of.