The repudiation of a claim by an Insurance Company does not constitute deficiency in service if done for bona fide reasons and with sufficient justification.

Thiru Justice M.S. Janarthanam, President-The appellant/complainant insured his mini lorry bearing Registration No. TN51-Y-4937 with the respondent/opposite party Insurance Company. During the currency of the policy of insurance, the vehicle met with an accident on 28.1.1996 at 7 a.m. while the vehicle was proceeding to Dindigul in the N.H.45 Road, near Vaiyampatti and sustained severe damages.

2. On report of the accident to the respondent/opposite party Insurance Company, a qualified Surveyor had been appointed to have the inspection of the vehicle and submit his report. The qualified Surveyor so appointed inspected the vehicle and gave his report assessing and quantifying the damages at Rs. 25,182/-. After the receipt of the report of the Surveyor, the respondent/opposite party Insurance Company was prepared to settle the claim for the said amount but the appellant/complainant was not amenable and he would claim an escalated amount by obtaining quotations from certain service stations. The respondent/opposite party Insurance Company was however not amenable to settle for such escalated amount.

3. As a matter of fact, no material had been placed on record by the respondent/complainant pointing out as to why the report as submitted by the Surveyor could not be accepted, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

4. The Forum below recorded a finding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/opposite party Insurance Company when especially they had repudiated the claim as made by the complainant for bona fide reasons in good faith after duly applying its mind to the unrebutted report of the Surveyor and other facts and circumstances of the case.

5. The appellant/complainant who preferred the appeal in person is not present in Court to project his hues of views. We heard the arguments of learned Counsel Mr. K.S. Narasimhan, for the respondent/opposite party Insurance Company.

6. Even at the outset, we may point out that there are absolutely no merits in appeal. The appellant/complainant, as already indicated, simply obtained quotations from certain service stations as to the amount required for setting right the damages sustained by the vehicle in question. He had not even repaired the vehicle and produced the necessary bills. The respondent/opposite party, Insurance Company, assessed the damages by the appointment of the qualified Surveyor. The Surveyor's report was not at all challenged by the appellant/complainant. Such being the case, the respondent/opposite party Insurance Company for bona fide reasons on due application of mind repudiated the claim of the complainant/appellant for escalated damages. This sort of an act on the part of the respondent/opposite party Insurance Company cannot at all be stated to be deficiency in service on their part.

7. Pertinent it is to note at this juncture the decision in Gurbhed Singh v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., II (1997) CPJ 124 (NC)=1986-99 Consumer 4182 (NS). In the said decision, the National Commission held that “repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company after obtaining and considering three separate survey reports from qualified Surveyors and by its officers could not be said to constitute deficiency in service so as to give rise to the cause of action under the Consumer Protection Act and there are sufficient materials available on record to justify that the repudiation of the claim was bona fide and for cogent reasons”.

8. The said decision of the National Commission is applicable in all fours to the facts of the instant case. For the reasons as above, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

9. In fine, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. We however make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

Appeal dismissed.