Back
2012(2) CPR 165 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ashok Bhan, President and Mrs. Vineeta Rai, Member
D.N. Badoni —Petitioner
versus
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. —Respondent
Revision Petition No. 817 of 2006
Decided on 4.11.2011
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: H.L. Khanna, Authorised representative
For the Respondent:Mr. Vishnu Mehra, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Surveyor’s report has significant evidentiary value unless it is proved otherwise.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Total loss of vehicle in snow accident—Amount of compensation reduced to Rs. 7,717 from Rs. 90,670 as awarded by District Forum—Vehicle remained buried under snow for several months—Because of washing away of roads and inclement weather it took several months before Surveyor could get vehicle inspected—This delay could not constitute deficiency in service— No damage had been caused to vehicle including to its engine and other mechanical systems—Some paint had got chipped off from body and there was some external rusting and minor cracks in tyre—State Commission apart from being a Court of appeal is also a Court of fact and correctly concluded that actual loss suffered to the vehicle as reported by Surveyor was Rs. 3,715—To this amount the Surveyor has added another Rs. 4,000 being actual amount paid for toeing charges and by not deducting Rs. 1,500 as excess clause which is reasonable—No other compensation warranted—Impugned order upheld. (Paras 10 to 12)
Mrs. Vineeta Rai, Member—This revision pennon has been flied by D.N. Badoni (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) being aggrieved by the order of the Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun which was decided in favour of Oriental Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as respondent).
2. The facts of the case according to the petitioner who was the original complainant before the District Forum was that he had got his tanker No. UP-0-7D-9877 insured with the respondent Insurance Company for Rs. 5,05,000 for the period from 3.11.1997 to 2.11.1998 for covering various risks including accident by external means and that he had paid the required premium of Rs. 8,202. The vehicle got buried under snow on 15.10.1998 at Malari near ITBP camp where it had gone to deliver a cargo and since the road leading to the accidental site was washed away, the vehicle could not be recovered till the snow melted in June the following year which resulted in total loss of the vehicle. Immediate information was given to the respondent by the petitioner regarding this incident, followed by reminders but it was only on 15.3.1999 that respondent appointed Shri Kamal Kumar Naithani as Surveyor to assess the loss. The Surveyor could only reach the site on 16.6.1999. After inspection, the Surveyor advised the petitioner to bring the vehicle to Dehradun which was done and petitioner was asked to submit estimate of repairs. Petitioner submitted estimate of damages to the extent of Rs.93,340. Thereafter, the respondent appointed another Surveyor to make final assessment of the loss and although all the necessary documents were supplied and repairs carried out by the petitioner amounting to Rs.90,677, the respondent took no action to settle the claim. Aggrieved by this deficiency in service petitioner filed a complaint with the District Forum requesting that the respondent be directed to pay Rs.90,677 being the cost of the repairs of the vehicle. Rs.1,49,500 on account of loss of earnings and idle depreciation, etc. and Rs.1,00,000 for interest payable to State Bank of India from whom he had taken a loan to a purchase the tanker and therefore the total amount claimed was Rs. 3,40,177.
3. Counsel for respondent while refuting the above contention stated that as per the report of the Surveyor the loss to the vehicle was assessed at Rs. 3,715 and the Regional Manager of the Insurance Company had also informed the petitioner about the same and had sent a discharge voucher for signatures.
4. District Forum vide its order dated 27.9.2003 after hearing both parties and considering the evidence on record allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay the petitioner Rs.90,670 towards repairs of the vehicle along with Rs.5,000 as compensation and Rs.2,000 as costs.
5. The respondent preferred an appeal against the order of the District Forum. The State Commission after hearing the parties and ‘on the basis of the evidence on record including the report of the Surveyors and the photographs of the vehicle concluded that the loss suffered was only Rs.7,717 and directed the respondent/Insurance Company to pay this amount to the petitioner within two months, failing which interest @ 9% would be levied from the date of filing the complaint to the date of payment of this amount. The operative part of the order of the State Commission is reproduced as under:
The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.42,000 as driver’s salary. Who has asked him to keep the driver for 8 months? He could have employed him somewhere else and if he was under his employment, he could have taken other work from him. He has also claimed the refund of the premium. We do not know under what law the complainant shall get compensation on the one hand and on the other hand he will ask for the refund of the premium. He has also claimed a sum of Rs.25,000 for the taxes of the vehicle. Where is any law that in case of damage, the taxes shall be paid by the Insurance C
