The court upheld the State Commission's order and emphasized the importance of prompt and fair assessment of loss in insurance claims.

ORDER

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member - Katragadda Sankara Rao, the complainant obtained goods carrying commercial vehicle policy covering Tata Heavy Goods Vehicle for Rs. 18 lakh for the period covering from 21.6.2007 to 20.6.2008 with hypothecation of ICICI Bank. On 11.5.2008, the said vehicle while it was plying from Chennai to Rajamundary with a load of craft papers and while on its way near Tetali, lost control and hit against a cement pillar and a stationary vehicle. On the same day, the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer, appointed a surveyor, Mr. K. K. Kumar to conduct a spot Survey. The power tiller was shifted to different sheds at Vijayawada for repairs. The complainant obtained estimate for Rs. 14,15,114 for the power and Rs. 1,63,600 for the trailer, the total being Rs. 16,08,714, which according to the opposite party is 89% more than the cost of the vehicle. Thereafter, the opposite party appointed another Surveyor who assessed the loss.

2. A complaint was lodged by the complainant stating that the Surveyor had demanded bribe from him and the Surveyor left for USA without completing the job. The next Surveyor inspected the vehicle and assessed the damage at Rs. 8,48,354. The case of the opposite party/petitioner is that the amount assessed by the Surveyor on repairs basis and later demanded for settlement of the claim on total loss and the opposite party/petitioner said to have informed him that it will be possible only when the loss assessed is more than 75% of the IDV. The complainant did not carry out the repairs nor submitted the bills. Request was made to him through various letters but it did not ring the bell.

3. The complainant ultimately sent reply dated 2.3.2009 and requested for the settlement of the claim on cash loss basis. The Surveyor assessed the loss on Cash Loss Basis for Rs. 5,51,915. The intimation was sent to the complainant but it evoked no response.

4. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to deposit a sum of Rs. 8,48,354 together with interest @ 9% p.a. from 1.4.2009 till payment and Rs. 10,000 towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000 as costs. It also directed the appellant to pay the amount subject to result of Civil Court.

5. Aggrieved by that order, the opposite party approached the State Commission. The State Commission modified the order rendered by the District Forum and reduced the compensation to Rs. 8 lakh with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till payment together with the amount of Rs. 10,000 towards compensation and Rs. 2,000 towards costs.

6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the State Commission has passed the order without any basis. Thereafter, the Counsel for the respondent submitted that they would be satisfied if the repairs of the vehicle are made by the opposite party. He contended that as a matter of fact, the total amount of repair will entail more than Rs. 14 lakh.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner wanted some time to have instructions from his department. After one hour, he turned up and submitted that it is not possible to get the vehicle repaired. It clearly smacks of a fig leaf job. The Insurance Company has tried to keep the reality under the wraps. It has made a clumsy attempt to get rid of this case. The mala fide intention on the part of company is apparent. It could have ordered any workshop of its choice to make the repairs and foot the bill. It is also clear that repairs will entail a lot of money which the opposite party is trying to evade.

9. Moreover we see no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission. It is difficult to fathom as to why the Surveyor was appointed for the second time.

10. The State Commission has already taken a lenient view. It should have been Rs. 8,48,354. The bizarre conduct of the petitioner is difficult to understand. The complainant is also negligent to some extent.