Back
GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANAJI
N.A. Britto, President and Smt. Vidhya R. Gurav, Member
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. —Appellant
versus
Shyam Umakant Naik & Anr. —Respondents
Appeal No. 5 of 2011
Decided on 13.3.2012
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Shri E. Afonso, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Shri Kapil Verenkar, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2: Ex parte.
IMPORTANT POINT
Unexplained delay while settling complainant’s claim amounts to deficiency in service.
Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15 and 17—Insurance—Damage to car in self accident—Warranty is given by manufacturer against manufacturing defects—Complainant can blame no one but himself for present state of vehicle—Both surveyors appointed by New India and those who were consulted were of opinion that body shell could be repaired—Their opinion could not be simply brushed aside—Complainant had produced no proof that he had paid any installments to ICICI bank except for his bare self serving statement—Complainant would not be entitled to any compensation of more than Rs.43,012 as assessed by both surveyors—Appeal allowed. (Paras 8 and 9)
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 3—Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005—Regulation 18(7)—Expeditious disposal of claim proceeding—District Forum has taken 4½ years to pronounce order after filing of written arguments when they were required to pass final order invariably within 15 days of conclusion of arguments—Adjourning a matter for seeking clarification is an indirect way of gaining some time to overcome the provisions of passing final order within 15 days—Fora under the Act are not expected to go against reason and against law—Their orders are expected to be short and precise but not opposed to reason and law—Consumer Courts were created to supplement and not to supplant jurisdiction of the Civil Courts—They were meant to provide simple, summary, less expensive and more expeditious remedy to settle consumer grievance. (Paras 14 and 15)
(iii) Insurance Act, 1938—Section 64UM—Surveyor—Report of surveyor is an important document and cannot be brushed aside—Assessment made therein has to be specifically agreed or rebutted—Surveyor’s report is an important piece of evidence and respondent can be awarded compensation only on the basis of surveyor’s report. (Para 29)
Result: Appeal allowed.
N.A. Britto, President—The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (New India, for short) Opposite Party No.1 in Complainant No.21/2004 before the South Goa District Forum (DF, for short) has filed the present appeal and has assailed the order dated 10.11.2010 of the Learned District Forum.
2. This Appeal was filed with an application for condonation of delay of 13 days, and Respondent No.1 (Complainant, for short), has given his no objection and therefore we grant the application and proceed to decide the appeal on merits.
3. The Complainant had purchased a Maruti Omni vehicle having registration No.GA2J 7623 on hire purchase basis from ICICI Bank Ltd., on 1.1.2002. The said vehicle was under a policy of comprehensive insurance issued by New India, when it met with a self accident on 1.5.2003 at about 22.45 hours near Holy Spirit Church, Margao.
4. The Complainant then moved the vehicle to the workshop of M/s Chowgule Industries Ltd. (Chowgules, for short) on the same day and obtained from them an opinion for replacement of body shell, vide letter dated 15.7.2003 (copy at page 3). Chowgules gave an estimate for Rs.1,48,123 with a rider that additional parts may be required and if required a separate estimate would be given (copy at page 4). The Complainant intimated New India of the said accident on 12.5.2003 and on the same day New India appointed Shri B.S. Kamat, Surveyor/Loss Assessor to assess the damage to the vehicle. On 15.7.2003 (copy at page 33) the New India noted that the vehicle was lying with Chowgules without any clarification on body shell repairs and wrote to the complainant to take up the matter with the repairer, the said Chowgules, and asked him to give further details so that the Survey Report could be released at the earliest and in case they were not to hear from him they would close the claim, as no claim. The complainant by his letter dated 21.7.2003, (copy at page 9) probably knowing that the estimate was made by said Shri Kamat, informed New India that the entire body shell was to be replaced and could not be repaired and therefore asked New India to approve a fresh estimate on urgent basis. The estimate prepared by Shri B.S. Kamat, however, came to be submitted only on 25.7.2003. On 30.7.2003 (copy at page 10) New India called upon the Complainant to shift the vehicle to Satardekar Garage, Zuarinagar, for repairs, as instructed earlier by their Surveyor. Complainant by his letter dated 5.8.2003 (copy at page 11) informed New India that he was not interested in repairing the vehicle with any other garage as his vehicle was new and the Chowgules was an authorized Service Station of Maruti Udyog Ltd. The Complainant also mentioned that New India could not force him to got to Satardekar Garage and he had every right to choose the garage. On 14.8.2003 (copy at page 65) upon the request of New India Shri V.P. Usgaonkar Sr. Surveyor/Loss Assessor gave his opinion/estimate concurring with the opinion of Shri B.S. Kamat stating that the body shell was repairable and the body shell did not require a replacement.
5. A meeting was held on 3.10.2003 between the complainant, New India, Mr. Shetgaonkar of Chowgules and both the Surveyors/ Loss Assessors (copy at page 64).
At the meeting Mr. Shetgaonkar agreed to carry out the repairs of the body shell but refused to give any guarantee for the said repairs. The matter was therefore left to the Complainant to discuss the problem with the said repairer and get back to New India.
6. Ultimately, by letter dated 7.10.2003, New India requested the Complainant to carry out the repairs, as agreed by the said Mr. Shetgaonkar and submit the bills to them.
7. In the meantime New India by their letter dated 4.2.2004 had called for an explanation from Shri B.S. Kamat, Surveyor, for delay in submitting his report inspite of the papers having been handed over to him on 12.5.2003 and he having conducted an inspection on 13.5.2003. The said Shri B.S. Kamat gave his explanation on 15.2.20
