Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA
Honble Mr. Justice P.N. Nag, President; Mr. I.D. Bali,
Mrs. Krishana Tandon, Members
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.—Appellant
versus
SHRI SUKHDEV SINGH GILL—Respondent
Appeal No. 52 of 1994—Decided on 28.10.1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: In person.
An arbitration clause in an insurance policy pertaining to disputes about the quantum of insurance claim does not operate as a jurisdictional bar against the Redressal Agencies under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - INSURANCE POLICY - SECTION 2(1)(g) - INSURANCE COMPANY LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF TRUCK - REPORT OF SURVEYOR RELIED UPON - APPEAL DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent's truck, insured with the appellant insurance company, met with an accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy. The insurance company repudiated the claim, relying on the report of a surveyor who assessed the loss at a lower amount. The respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum, which directed the insurance company to pay compensation based on the report of another surveyor who had assessed the loss at a higher amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the insurance company was liable to pay compensation for the loss of the truck. It rejected the insurance company's contention that the matter should have been referred to arbitration, as the insurance policy did not oust the jurisdiction of the Fora under the Consumer Protection Act. The court also rejected the insurance company's reliance on the report of the first surveyor, as it was based on photographs of the accidented vehicle and not on an inspection of the vehicle itself. The court accepted the report of the second surveyor, which had been agreed to by the insurance company in its letter dated 31.5.91.
Issues: 1. Whether the insurance company was liable to pay compensation for the loss of the truck. 2. Whether the matter should have been referred to arbitration. 3. Which surveyor's report should be relied upon in assessing the loss.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The insurance company was liable to pay compensation for the loss of the truck because the accident occurred during the subsistence of the insurance policy and the insurance company had agreed to pay compensation based on the report of the second surveyor. 2. The matter did not have to be referred to arbitration because the insurance policy did not oust the jurisdiction of the Fora under the Consumer Protection Act. 3. The report of the second surveyor was more reliable than the report of the first surveyor because it was based on an inspection of the vehicle itself and not on photographs.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
Mr. Justice P.N. Nag, President — This appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Forum, Sirmoura at Nahan, date 22.7.94, whereby the opposite party (hereinafter to be referred to as the Insurance Company) has been directed to pay to the respondent Rs. 1,51,000/- less permissible deductions, alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from 1.8.91 till actual payment and also costs of Rs. 250/-.
2. The relevant facts necessary to be mentioned are that the respondent who was a owner of a Truck bearing Registration No. HP 17.3100 Old Number UGA-8515, insured this Truck with the Insurance Company for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 /- from October, 1990 to October, 1991. The Truck met with an accident on 1.4.91 when the Insurance policy was in force. The respondent preferred his claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated by the Insurance Company mainly on the ground that there is no deficiency in service and the loss should be assessed on the basis of the report of Surveyor Shri Vinod Singh Pal who has assessed the loss at Rs. 83,988/- subject to production of vouchers and in the alternative for Rs. 56,526/- without production of vouchers. However, the accident of the vehicle during the subsistence of the insurance contract has not been denied.
3. Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that according to Clause 8 of the insurance policy, the matter could be referred to the Arbitrator as the difference has arisen over the quantum of compensation in the present case. This point has not been taken either in the written statement nor at the time of argument before the learned District Forum and as such this question cannot be permitted to be raised at this belated stage. Apart from this, the Insurance Company has at no stage taken action in accordance with the terms of clause 8 of the insurance policy for the appointment of the Arbitrator. Furthermore, even if it is presumed that the matter could have been referred to the Arbitrator this, itself, does not oust the jurisdiction of the Fora to decide the matter in issue. An arbitration clause in an insurance policy pertaining to despites about the quantum of insurance claim does not operate as a jurisdictional bar against the Redressal Agencies under the Act. Further, the existence of a remedy by way of arbitration does not preclude the consumer from seeking redressal before the Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act which is a special statute enacted by Parliament for the specific purpose of providing a speedy, cheap and efficacious remedy to consumers before the Special Forums created for the that purpose. Again it will be noticed hereinafter that there appears to be no dispute even about the quantum of compensation as is tried to be made out by the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company. This contention, therefore, has been made merely to be rejected.
4. Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company next vehemently argues that the report of Mr. Vinod Singh Pal should have been relied upon by the learned District Forum which has assessed the damage for an amount of Rs. 83,988/- on production of vouchers and in the alterative for Rs. 56,526/- without production of vouchers. It is revealed from the report of Mr. Vinod Singh Pal that he has based his claim on the photographs of the accidented vehicle. No doubt, he has also inspected the vehicle but the vehicle by that time had already been repaired. Therefore, this report has been rightly rejected by the learned District Forum as the report is on the basis of the photographs of the accidented vehicle. Merely Mr. Vinod Singh Pal has assessed the loss at a lower amount, cannot form the basis for assessing the loss by the Insurance Company. The finding of this effect given by the learned District Forum is absolutely correct with which we are in agreement.
5. The next report which requires consideration is the report of Mr. Rakesh Aggarwal, another Sur
