Back
2017 Supreme(Chh) 689
BEFORE THE CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAIPUR
SHRI R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT AND SHRI D.K. PODDAR AND SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBERS
HARENDRA SINGH - Appellant
Versus
BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Respondent
Appeal No. FA/2017 of 360
Decided on : 10-08-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Miss Meenal Jaiswal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Shri P.K. Paul, Advocate.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2 (1) (g), 19 & 21 (a) (ii) - Cogent and convincing - In the year 2014, for his business work, the complainant purchased heavy vehicle goods trailer of the Tata Company bearing registration got insured the vehicle for the year and thereafter again the vehicle According to the Goods Carrier Vehicle Public Insurance Policy the vehicle was got insured for which premium of were regularly paid in the year said vehicle is insured with and the premium amount was paid to therefore the complainant is consumer and O.P. No. 1 (Insurance Company is service provider. On vehicle in question along with goods was turtled in turning near Valley, Hyderabad, which come under border of Maharashtra State. Due to turtle, the vehicle was damaged. The son of the complainant informed his local mechanic through telephone regarding the accident, then the mechanic suggested him that if the vehicle met with accident in other State, then it will proper to inform the Insurance Company through telephone - Held, Counsel for petitioner has also drawn our attention to the Apex Court Judgment in the case Syndicate v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and Another Supreme Court Case wherein the Apex Court has held as - There is no disputing the fact that the surveyor/surveyors are appointed by the insurance company under the provisions of the Insurance Act and their reports are to be given due importance and one should have sufficient grounds not to agree with the assessment made by them - In the instant case Surveyor and Loss Assessor, assessed the loss to the tune of report of the Surveyor, is a reliable document, therefore, the Surveyors Report is genuine and dependable. The report of the Surveyor should be given due weight-age and it should not be discarded lightly - Therefore, the appellant (complainant) is entitled to get a sum of compensation from the respondent - It was the duty of the learned District Forum to direct the respondent to pay a sum as assessed by the Surveyor, to the appellant (complainant), but learned District Forum dismissed the complainant, whereas the appellant (complainant) is entitled to get compensation from the respondent – appeal Dismissed
R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.03.2017, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (henceforth 'District Forum') in Complaint Case No.CC/2016/341. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the complainant.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that the main business of the complainant, is transport work and his family depends on the said business. In the year 2014, for his business work, the complainant purchased heavy vehicle goods trailer of the Tata Company bearing registration No.C.G.07-CA-9805. The O.P. (Insurance Company) got insured the vehicle for the year 2014-15 and thereafter again the vehicle was got insured on 27.08.2015 under insurance policy No. 27030031153106078330 which is valid upto 26.08.2016. According to the Goods Carrier Vehicle Public Insurance Policy the vehicle was got insured for Rs. 21,00,000/- for which premium of Rs. 34,486/- were regularly paid in the year 2014-15 and 2015-16. The said vehicle is insured with O.P. No. 1 (Insurance Company) and the premium amount was paid to the O.P. No. 1 (Insurance Company), therefore the complainant is consumer and O.P. No. 1 (Insurance Company is service provider. On 13.11.2015, the vehicle in question along with goods was turtled in turning near Kurarvedia Valley, Hyderabad, which come under border of Maharashtra State. Due to turtle, the vehicle was damaged. The son of the complainant Avinash Singh informed his local mechanic through telephone regarding the accident, then the mechanic suggested him that if the vehicle met with accident in other State, then it will proper to inform the Insurance Company through telephone. The son of the complainant Avinash Singh contacted the Insurance Company through its toll free No. and informed that his truck bearing registration No.C.G.07-C-9805 met with an accident near border of Maharashtra State and none had died or injured in the accident, only vehicle was damaged, then the O.P. No. 1 (Insurance Company) sent Surveyor Arjindra Singh Bhatia on 14.11.2015. The Surveyor came to spot and inspected the vehicle. The Surveyor found that in the accident, only the vehicle was completely damaged and the vehicle was required to be taken through another vehicle. The complainant brought the damaged vehicle through Sarpal Toe Crane Services. The son of the complainant was advised not to give intimation regarding the incident to the concerned Police Station. As no person had died or injured in the accident and he did not want to involve in the police proceedings and he was prohibited to lodge report, therefore, the son of the complainant did not lodge report. The vehicle was brought to Bhilai through tochan. The O.P. No. 1 (Insurance Company) sent M.S. Bagga for inspection of the vehicle, then he again conducted inspection and advised the complainant to get repair the vehicle and the Insurance Company will pay the entire expenses and entire claim amount after making proper deduction. On 28.01.2016, the complainant contacted the office of the O.P. (Insurance Company) and informed regarding the expenses incurred and he also shown some bills, then the O.P. No. 1 (Insurance Company) informed pucca bills in respect of the entire expenses is given, then after making proper valuation, the O.P. No. 1 (Insurance Company) will pay the claim amount. The complainant obtained pucca bills from where the parts of the vehicle was repaired. The complainant again went to the office of the Insurance Company and submitted above bills. The Manager of the Insurance Company assured the complainant that after inspection of the bills, the claim amount would be given to the complainant. On 09.02.2016 the Insurance Company informed the complainant through telephone regarding the amount that the cost of repairing is equal to half of the cost of the vehicle. The repairing cost of the vehicle is Rs. 5,47,938/- whereas the s
