NIZAMKHAN MUGALKHAN PATHAN vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

THE appellant is the original complainant whose complaint was dismissed by the District Forum, Mehsana on the ground that there is no deficiency of service since the opposite party-Insurance Company has offered the amount of Rs. 2100/- to the complainant. THE only question therefore arises for our consideration is as to whether the complainant was obliged to accept whatever amount that may be offered by the Insurance Company and if such amount is not accepted for a valid reason will it not amount to deficiency of service. In the instant case the complainant is a rikshaw driver who is earning his livelihood by plying the rikshaw. THEre is no dispute that the insurance was taken which was operative on the date of the accident. THEre is no dispute that the accident was reported on the very same day and spot survey was also made on the very same day i.e. 1.11.92. Now, this was a small accident for which the Insurance Company could have made the assessment survey within a day or to particularly when the complainant was a poor rickshaw driver whose livelihood was dependent upon plying of auto rickshaw. Mr. R.R. Panchal, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently contended that the complainant was bound to wait till the Insurance Company arranges to send a Surveyor for survey of the rickshaw. We are not impressed by the argument of the learned Advocate because in a case like this, where a person, whose livelihood is dependent on plying of rickshaw, when the accident was so small, even at the time of spot survey, the Surveyor could have assessed the damage. THE Insurance Company was, therefore, bound to survey within a very reasonable time and in this case, according to our opinion within 4 to 5 days. However, there is no much dispute about the amount claimed by the complainant and the Insurance Company. THE bills of the spare parts and labour charges were also produced before the Insurance Company which according to the learned Advocate for the appellant-complainant was for Rs. 4301/-. However, the Insurance Company has produced a survey report of Mr. Shailesh S. Nalgur which specifically states that the complainant has produced the bills totalling to Rs. 4301/- which includes spare parts and labour charges and he has reduced the same to Rs. 3345/- for spares and Rs. 490/- for labour charges which comes to Rs. 3735/-. However, after accepting the claim, the Surveyor has arrived at only Rs. 2100/- after allowing certain items which do not explain how he has reached the figures. Assuming that there is some depreciation which we have considered after applying mind, we are of the opinion that if Rs. 3,000/- are awarded it would be a fair damage to the complainant. THE complainant also has lost his business on account of this accident. Even this amount has not been offered to the complainant and the learned Judge has merely noted this amount only on the argument of the opposite party-Insurance Company. We, therefore, enquired from Mr. R.R. Panchal, learned Advocate for the respondent to produce the documents whereby they have offered Rs. 2100/-.

MR. Panchal was not in a position to satisfy us that this amount was ever been offered to the complainant. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Insurance Company ought to have produced atleast this amount before the District Forum or before us. At no time the Insurance Company has produced this amount and, therefore, Insurance Company is liable to pay interest to the complainant. We, therefore, allow the appeal and pass the following order. ORDER The appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside. The Insurance Company shall pay Rs. 3000/- to the appellant-complainant with interest @ 15% after two months from the date of accident till the payment is made. Since, we have awarded higher amount, we are not inclined to award any other amount. The Insurance Company shall pay the cost before both the Courts which we quantify at Rs. 100/-. Appeal allowed.