Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President; Mr. Damodar Thanvi, Member
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.—Appellant
versus
SMT. LAHRI BAI—Respondent
A.P. No. 162 of 1992—Decided on 20.8.93
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Sunil Nath, Advocate
For the Respondent: None
An insurance company is not bound by the survey reports of the surveyors, but there must be reasons for not accepting the surveyor's report.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - INSURANCE - SURVEY REPORT - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 54 VM CLAUSE (2) OF THE INSURANCE ACT - COURT HELD THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANY IS NOT BOUND BY THE SURVEY REPORTS OF THE SURVEYORS BUT THERE MUST BE REASONS FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE SURVEYOR’S REPORT.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's bus met with an accident and was badly damaged. The insurance company appointed a surveyor to conduct the spot survey and a final survey report was prepared. The complainant submitted an estimate for repair of the vehicle amounting to Rs. 79,382/-. The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 28,556/- and the insurance company was ready to pay Rs. 16,300/- as per the report of another surveyor.
Finding of the Court:
The District Forum ordered the insurance company to pay Rs. 28,256/- with interest to the complainant. The insurance company challenged the order before the National Commission.
Issues: Whether the insurance company is bound by the survey reports of the surveyors? Whether there were reasons for not accepting the surveyor's report?
Ratio Decidendi: The National Commission held that the insurance company is not bound by the survey reports of the surveyors but there must be reasons for not accepting the surveyor's report. In this case, the insurance company did not provide any valid reasons for not accepting the surveyor's report. The Commission also found that the surveyor's report was supported by the affidavits of the complainant and the person who repaired the vehicle.
Final Decision: The National Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the District Forum.
Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President—This appeal by the opposite party-insurer is directed against the order dated 27.4.1992 passed by the District Forum, Udaipur in Complaint Case No. 170/90. The District Forum ordered that the insurer-appellant should pay a sum of Rs. 28,256/- as compensation to the complainant respondent. A direction was also given that the opposite party-appellant shall be liable to pay interest on the aforesaid sum @ 12%% p.a. in case the amount is not paid by 28.6.1990. Rs. 250/- were awarded as costs to the complainant. In the impugned order it was incorporated that for non-compliance of the order the opposite party-appellant will render itself liable for imposition of penalty under Sec. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act” herein).
2. The complainant-respondent got her bus No. RSG 3961 insured with the opposite party-appellant. The period of insurance was from 29.6.1989 to 28.6.1990. The vehicle was comprehensively insured. The sum assured was Rs. 1,50,000/-. Policy No. 63103012 and cover note No. 322134 were issued. The said bus met with an accident at about 1 p.m. between the night of 10th and 11th Dec. 1989. The accident was with truck No. RNY 6126. On account of the accident the complainant’s bus was badly damaged. The information about the accident was lodged at the Police Station, Kurabad. Intimation was also given to the Insurance Company. Mr. N.S. Sinani, Surveyor was appointed to conduct the spot survey. Its final survey was done by Shri R.C. Sharma. The complainant submitted the permit, license, fitness certificate, registration certificate and quotations of the damaged parts and bills to the opposite party-appellant. She submitted estimate for repair of the vehicle amounting to Rs. 79,382/-. This was the estimate submitted by her. The Surveyor after making the necessary deductions assessed the loss at Rs. 28,556/-. From this sum, a sum of Rs. 300/-was deducted on account of value of salvage and therefore, he recommended for Rs. 28,256/-. The Insurance Company failed to settle the claim. Therefore the complaint was filed praying that the opposite party-appellant may be directed to settle the claim and pay the amount and if it fails to make the payment, interest on the amount may also be awarded. Compensation was claimed on account of mental tension.
3. The opposite party submitted the version of the case raising various objections about jurisdiction etc. It was pleaded that a letter was sent by the complainant which was received on 12.12.1989 stating that vehicle No. RSG 3961 had met with an accident. In that it was not stated that when the accident had taken place. Mr. Manohar Sainani was appointed as Surveyor to conduct the spot survey who conducted the survey on 12.12.1989. The complainant did not submit the fitness certificate, tax token, driving licence etc. to him so they could not be verified by Mr. Manohar Sainani and his report remained incomplete. The complainant submitted exaggerated quotations to the opposite party. It appointed Shri. R.C. Sharma for final survey report who prepared the survey report for high amount whereas in fact the loss was less. It was alleged that the complainant had colluded with the Surveyor Shri R.C. Sharma and got the report prepared for Rs. 28,556/- which was of exaggerated amount. The Insurance Company was not bound by the recommendations made by Shri R.C. Sharma. As there was difference between spot survey report and final survey report, papers were sent to Senior Surveyor, M /s. Mehta & Sons and they were asked to submit an independent report. They submitted the report on 16.5.1990 mentioning the defects and shortcomings of the report of Shri Sharma. They stated that loss to the extent of Rs. 16,300/-was only caused. The opposite party was ready to make payment of Rs. 16,300/-. But the complainant refused to take it. The opposite party in still ready to make payment to the complainant if the District Forum orders. An objection as take
