IMPORTANT POINT
Report of Surveyor which is not supported by affidavit cannot be accepted.

Vinay Kumar, Member—The two revision petitions here are both filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd., which was OP-1 in the complaint filed before the District Forum-I Hyderabad, by the first respondent here, Mohd. Ishaq. The order of the District Forum in CC No.872 of 2008 was challenged before the AP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in two separate appeals, by the Complainant, Mohd. Ishaq and OP-1, National Insurance Company Limited. The impugned order is a common order passed in the two appeals, which have been disposed of by the State Commission in the following terms:-

“In the result the appeal filed by the complainant F.A. 611/2010 is allowed directing the insurance company to pay Rs.3,75,155/- with costs of Rs.3,000/-. The insurance company is liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., if it fails to pay the said amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order till the date of realization. Consequently the appeal preferred by the insurance company F.A. 1196/2009 is dismissed. No costs.”

2. The facts of the case relate to an insurance claim for a vehicle under a policy taken by the Complainant. During the period of operation of the policy, the vehicle had met with an accident. The claim of the Complainant under the policy for the repair costs, remained unsettle and hence, the consumer complaint.

3. Per contra, the case of the revision petitioner/OP-1 before the District Forum was that it is mandatory on the part of the owner to furnish the particulars of the accident together with all documents like the registration certificate, driving licence etc. and the repair bills. Immediately after receiving the claim of the Complainant, the insurance company had appointed a Surveyor to conduct a spot survey and submit his report. The Surveyor in his report categorically stated that inspite of his personal requests and several reminders the Complainant had failed to submit the above mentioned documents for verification. In the absence of those documents, it is very difficult to know the correct facts and therefore, the OP had not been able to finalize the claim. Thus, according to the averment in the written response of OP-1 before the District Forum, final decision could not be taken due to non-cooperation of the Complainant.

4. On this explanation of the Insurance Company for non-settlement of the claim, the District Forum has made the following observation:-

“The only contention raised by opposite party No.1 in the counter and the evidence affidavit is that the complainant failed to furnish the necessary documents justifying his claim. We can not appreciate such a contention as nobody making a claim would remain silent without sending the copies of the documents justifying the claim arising out of the accident. In fact exhibit B10 relied on by the opposite parties 1 and 2 makes it clear that there was the claim by the complainant as early as on 7-12-2006. It is significant to note that opposite party No.1 himself filed exhibit B10. When the complainant made the claim, he would have definitely enclosed the necessary documents. Exhibit B10 discloses that along with the letter dated 7-12-2006 the complainant had also enclosed copy of the FIR, copy of the RC, copy of RTA permit, claim form, given by the opposite party No.3, and also the driver’s license. So opposite party No.1 cannot be permitted to say that the complainant had not enclosed the necessary documents.”

5. Further, both fora below have observed that the OP/Insurance Company relied on the report of the Surveyor according to which the requisite documents were not furnished by the Complainant inspite of several reminders being addressed to him to furnish the same. Yet, the Insurance Company did not file the affidavit evidence of the Surveyor to substantiate this point. In the absence of the same, no reliance has been placed by the fora below on the report of the surveyor.

6. We have perused the records and heard