Back
ORISSA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CUTTACK
Dr. (Mrs.) Arati Mohanty, Presiding
Member & Mr. Pramodnath Das, Member
BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.—Appellant
versus
GOBARDHAN PUJARI—Respondent
Appeal No. 214 of 1997—Decided on 21.6.2004
For the Appellant :Mr. P. Roy & his Associates, Advocates.
For the Respondent: None.
The court's decision was based on the assessment of the loss and damages sustained by the vehicle and the specific sum assessed by the Surveyor.
Headnote:
Insurance Claim - Car Insurance - The court directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 1,581/- as assessed by the Surveyor and Rs. 1,000/- as costs to the complainant for the damages sustained by the vehicle.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent's car met with an accident, and the Insurance Company did not settle the claim despite the submission of relevant documents and expense bills.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the loss and damages sustained by the vehicle, as claimed by the respondent, were not appropriate and directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 1,581/- as assessed by the Surveyor and Rs. 1,000/- as costs to the complainant.
Issues: Dispute over settlement of insurance claim for a car accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court assessed the loss and damages sustained by the vehicle and directed the Insurance Company to pay a specific sum based on the Surveyor's assessment.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the Insurance Company was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,581/- as assessed by the Surveyor and Rs. 1,000/- as costs to the complainant.
Dr. (Mrs.) Arati Mohanty, Presiding Member—The subject matter, in short, is that the respondent-complainant had insured his Premier Padmini car bearing No. ORE 5859 with the appellant Insurance Company vide Policy No. 3155050604819. The policy was in force from 7.7.1994 to 6.7.1995. In the meantime the said vehicle met with an accident on 3.10.1994. The respondent immediately intimated the fact to the appellant and subsequently submitted the details along with all the relevant documents to the appellant. The respondent has also submitted the expense bills for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards repairing of the vehicle. But the appellant did not settle the claim.
2. The appellant in their written version said that the respondent has neither submitted the F.I.R. about the accident and documents relating to the accident nor submitted the claim for processing. The appellant after receipt of information from the respondent deputed a Surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs. 1,580.64.
3. The respondent-complainant has argued that after receipt of the notice from the District Forum, the appellant issued a cheque for Rs. 1,581/- as per the Surveyor’s report dated 11.10.1996. The respondent stated that the detailed expenses and claim form have been duly submitted to the appellant.
4. The appellant issued a cheque of Rs. 1,581/- on 5.11.1996. The respondent produced the money receipt of M/s. Nancy Automobiles Ltd. dated 3.1.1995 which is the authorised service station of the said vehicle.
5. On perusal of the records and from the photographs of the above said vehicle, we come to the conclusion that the loss and damages sustained by the vehicle, as claimed by the respondent is not appropriate. Therefore, we direct the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 1,581/-, that has been assessed by the Surveyor and Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) as costs within two months from the date of the order.
The appeal is allowed in part.
Mr. Pramodnath Das, Member—I agree.
Appeal partly allowed.
–
