Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUCKNOW
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava,
President & Mr. D.D. Bahuguna, Member
VIRENDRA SINGH RATHORE—Appellant
versus
REGIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.—Respondent
Appeal No. 2494/SC of 1998—Decided on 2.8.2000

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : In person.
For the Respondent: None.

The court emphasized the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act in deciding the quantum of claim, and the rejection of the surveyor's report in favor of the complainant's estimate for the repairs.

Headnote:
Insurance - Vehicle Insurance - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12, Section 14 - The court discussed the assessment of damages for a vehicle insured with the Insurance Company, the role of surveyors in assessing the damages, and the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act in deciding the quantum of claim.
Fact of the Case:

The complainant's vehicle was insured with the respondent, and after an accident, the Insurance Company assessed the damages and offered a lower amount than claimed by the complainant. The complainant appealed the decision of the District Forum.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the assessment of damages by the Insurance Company's surveyor was not reasonable and rejected the report. It held that the Consumer Protection Act has jurisdiction to decide the quantum of claim, even if it relates only to the amount of damages.
Issues: Assessment of damages for insured vehicle, Jurisdiction of Consumer Protection Act in deciding quantum of claim
Ratio Decidendi: The court rejected the surveyor's report and relied on the complainant's estimate for the repairs. It also emphasized the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act in deciding the quantum of claim.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order of the District Forum were set aside. The complainant's claim was decreed for a specific amount with interest, and compliance was ordered within a specified period.

ORDER

Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava, President—This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 8.9.1998 passed by District Consumer Forum, Bijnor in Complaint Case No. 406/1994.

2. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant owned Janga Jeep No. DL-4C-6361 which was insured with the respondent, United India Insurance Company Limited, for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The premium was duly paid on 14.12.1990. According to the complainant the vehicle met with an accident on 22.10.1991 (the year has been wrongly mentioned in the judgment as 90). The accident took place while the vehicle was returning from Shahkumbari Devi Mandir when the jeep was about 1 km. away from Bhagwanpur Road, the steering failed and the jeep fell in the Khud. A sum of Rs. 50,221.90 was spent for repairs of the vehicle. The bills were submitted to the Insurance Company, but they did not rely on the bills and got the jeep inspected and sent a cheque for Rs. 8,141/- only which does not represent the cost of the repairs. The complainant represented to the Insurance Company through an Advocate but wrong reply was given alongwith the said cheque.

3. The opposite party in the written version has alleged that a Surveyor was appointed soon after the accident. A final survey was got done by Sri V.P. Maheshwari who assessed the loss at Rs. 7,191/-. On this basis that much amount was sent to the complainant alongwith discharge voucher. On request of the complainant a second Surveyor was appointed who increased the claim by Rs. 950/-. Thus the claim was finally settled at Rs. 8,141/-. This amount was sent to the complainant by post which the complainant accepted but did not return the discharge voucher. It is further alleged that the complaint is not triable by the District Forum and should be tried by the Civil Court.

4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence on record, the learned District Forum directed the opposite party, Insurance Company, to analyse the survey report again correctly and payment be made within 45 days if found to be the just claim.

5. Aggrieved against the order of the learned District Forum, the complainant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum.

6. Before this Commission a notice was issued to the opposite party in August, 1999 for 15.2.2000. This registered cover was not received back unserved and hence service is presumed against the opposite party and the appeal proceeded ex-parte against the respondent. The appeal is being decided on merits.

7. It is an admitted fact that the vehicle of the complainant was insured and the accident took place as alleged by the complainant. Now the only question which survives for determination is that as to what is the amount of damage which should be awarded to the complainant on account of the said accident for which the vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company. As mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment two Surveyors were appointed. The second survey was got done by Sri V.P. Maheshwari and whose report has been received which is on record as filed by the complainant. This was received by post in compliance of the order of this Commission dated 30.6.2000. A perusal of this report goes to show that extensive damage has been caused to the vehicle. This fact will be apparent from the details of damages given by the Surveyor. The Surveyor has not allowed a number of items but has not given any reason for not allowing those claims. It may be desirable to give a list of items which have been disallowed by the Surveyor.

1. Die rod kit

2. Bonet shackle

3. Wind screen glass

4. Clutch brake assembly

5. Cam shaft

6. Fuel pump gear

7. Timing gear set

8. Fan blade

9. Clutch plate

10. Radiator foundation

11. Dash board foundation

12. Front leaf spring Main, 2nd