Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sunil Kumar Garg, President and Vimla Sethia, Member
VIPIN LADHA - Appellant
Versus
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND ORS. - Respondents
Appeal No. 97 of 2008
Decided on : 09-04-2009
Mr. D.M. Mathur, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Virendra Agarwal, Advocate, for the Respondent
The report of the surveyor should be given due weightage in insurance claims disputes.
Headnote:
Insurance - Car Insurance Claim - The court held that the report of the surveyor should be given due weightage and the complainant could approach the Civil Court or IRDA under the provision of 64UM of Insurance Act, or invoke the condition of the policy relating to reference to arbitration in case of quantum dispute.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a complaint against the insurance company for not paying the full amount for the repair of his car after an accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the complaint, stating that the amount offered by the insurance company based on the surveyor's report was accepted by the complainant in full and final settlement of the claim.
Issues: Dispute over the amount payable for car repair after an accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The report of the surveyor should be given due weightage, and the complainant could approach the Civil Court or IRDA under the provision of 64UM of Insurance Act, or invoke the condition of the policy relating to reference to arbitration in case of quantum dispute.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed, with liberty given to the complainant to approach the Civil Court for claiming more compensation.
ORDER
1. This appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant against the order dated 30.4.2008 passed by the District Forum, Chittorgarh in Complaint No. 343/07, by which the complaint of the complainant appellant was dismissed.
2. It may be stated here that the complainant appellant had filed a complaint against the respondents before the District Forum, Chittorgarh on 23.11.2007 inter alia stating that his Santro car bearing No. MP.09.HB.9354 was got insured with the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Insurance Company for the period 19.4.2007 to 18.4.08 for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000. It was further stated in the complaint that on 4.5.2007, the car had met with an accident and information of that incident was given by the complainant appellant to the office of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Insurance Company where a Surveyor was appointed and in getting the repair of the car a sum of Rs. 47,728 were spent, but respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Insurance Company had sent a cheque dated 26.7.2004 for a sum of Rs. 24,352 which was received by the complainant appellant on 3.9.2007 and for the remaining amount the complaint was filed.
3. A reply was filed by the respondent No. 1 and 2 before the District Forum on 16.2.2008 and in the reply it was stated that the amount as assessed by the Surveyor was sent to the complainant appellant and the same was accepted by the complainant appellant, hence no case, complaint be dismissed.
4. The District Forum after hearing both the parties, through the impugned order had dismissed the complaint inter alia holding that since the amount in question was accepted by the complainant appellant in full and final settlement of the claim, therefore, more amount was not payable.
5. Aggrieved from that order, this appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant.
6. So far as the question that the amount in question was accepted by the complainant appellant in full and final settlement of the claim is concerned, but since the amount was offered by the respondents on the basis of the survey report of Shri Rajesh Kumar Goel dated 8.6.2007 who had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 24,852, therefore, if the complainant appellant feels aggrieved from that report,he should approach the Civil Court as the report of the surveyor should be given weightage .
7. The Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Champalal Verma v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2008) 3 CPJ 93 (NC), has held that as per the law it is the report of the Surveyor which has to be given due weightage and the District Forum could not go into the question of quantum dispute as it will involve a detailed investigation, which could not be held in the summary proceedings under the provisions of the C.P. Act, 1986.
8. The Hon'ble National Commission has further observed that in such cases the complainant would be free to either approach the Civil Court or approach to IRDA under the provision of 64UM of Insurance Act, or to invoke the condition of the policy relating to reference to arbitration in case of quantum dispute.
9. Apart from that this Commission is of the view that the report of the surveyor should be given due weightage.
10. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission supra, this Commission is of the view that the complainant respondent is not entitled to more amount than assessed by the Surveyor and if the complainant feels that he is entitled to more amount for that the complainant would be free to either approach the Civil Court or approach to IRDA under the provision of 64UM of Insurance Act, or to invoke the condition of the policy relating to reference to arbitration in case of quantum dispute. However it may be stated here that the time spent before the District Forum as well as before this Commission shall be set off by the concerned authorities where the proceedings for further compensation would be taken up as per provision of Section 14 of Limitation Act as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Laxmi Engin
