Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sunil Kumar Garg, President and Vimla Sethiya, Member
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Appellant
Versus
MANAK CHAND PUGALIA - Respondent
Appeal No. 838 of 2006
Decided on : 30-04-2009
Mrs. Manju Jain, Advocate, for the Appellant; None., for the Respondent
In exceptional cases, deviation from the amount assessed by the surveyor is permissible, and the assessed amount may not always be the final basis for compensation.
Headnote:
Insurance Company - Vehicle Insurance - The court allowed the complaint of the respondent against the insurance company, directing the payment of compensation for vehicle damage and interest. The court found that the amount assessed by the surveyor did not justify the compensation awarded, but in exceptional cases, deviation from the assessed amount is permissible.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's vehicle was insured with the appellant Insurance Company. After an accident, the insurance company offered a lower amount for repair than claimed by the complainant. The District Forum allowed the complaint, directing the insurance company to pay compensation and interest.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal, finding that while the amount assessed by the surveyor should be paid as a rule, in exceptional cases, deviation from that amount is permissible. The court also quashed the award of additional compensation by the District Forum.
Issues: Discrepancy between the amount claimed for vehicle repair and the amount assessed by the surveyor, and the justification for deviation from the assessed amount in exceptional cases.
Ratio Decidendi: In exceptional cases, deviation from the amount assessed by the surveyor is permissible, and the assessed amount may not always be the final basis for compensation.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the award of additional compensation by the District Forum was quashed and set aside.
ORDER
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company which was OP before the District Forum, Bikaner against the order dated 4.4.2006 passed by the District Forum, Bikaner in complaint No. 269/05, by which the complaint of the complainant respondent was allowed against the appellant Insurance Company in the manner that the appellant Insurance Company was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000 as amount of compensation for the damage to the vehicle with interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 1.3.2005 and further to pay Rs. 5,000 as amount of compensation.
2. It arises in the following circumstances:
3. That the complainant-respondent had filed a complaint against the appellant Insurance Company before the District Forum, Bikaner on 20.9.2005 inter alia stating that his Mahendra jeep bearing registration No. RJ.07/ G.2661 was got insured with the appellant Insurance Company for the period 11.3.2003 to 10.3.2004 for a sum of Rs. 1,75,000. It was further stated in the complaint that on the intervening night of 6/7.5.2003, the said jeep had met with an accident as when the jeep was in motion, the tyre of left side was burst as a result of which the driver of the jeep had lost the control and the jeep was struck against the pole and had damaged and information of the incident was given by the complainant respondent to the office of the appellant Insurance Company and in that accident the radiator, battery, bumper, chassis, bonnet, etc. were damaged and a sum of Rs. 70,000 were to be spent in getting the repair, but the appellant, Insurance Company through letter dated 11.4.2005 had sent a cheque for a sum of Rs. 11,000 only and that was not found acceptable and thereafter the present complaint was filed.
4. A reply was filed by the appellant Insurance Company on 10.11.2005 before the District Forum, Bikaner and in the reply it was stated that no doubt,the Surveyor appointed by the appellant Insurance Company Shri Deepak Kumar Sharma in his report dated 16.6.2003 had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 12,963.05, but since taking into consideration the re-inspection report of Shri Deepak Kumar Sharma, a sum of Rs. 11,000 were rightly offered and it was stated that the complaint be allowed to that extent only and rest claim be dismissed.
5. The District Forum after hearing both the parties, through the impugned order dated 4.4.2006 had allowed the complaint as stated above, inter alia holding that no doubt the complainant-respondent had claimed Rs. 70,000 in getting the repair of the vehicle, no doubt the Surveyor appointed by the appellant Insurance Company had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 12,963.05, therefore, offering of Rs. 11,000 was not justified at all and further taking into consideration when the complainant-respondent had spent some money in denting and painting in getting the repair of the vehicle, therefore, taking into consideration the aspects of both of them, a way out was made in the manner that not accepting the claim of both sides, the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 30,000 as amount of compensation for the damage of the vehicle.
6. Aggrieved from that order, this appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company.
7. In this appeal, the main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company is that since the Surveyor appointed by the appellant Insurance Company Shri Deepak Kumar Sharma had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 12,963.05, therefore, awarding of Rs. 30,000 was not justified at all and to that extent the impugned order dated 4.4.2006 be modified and appeal be allowed.
8. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and perused the record.
9. In this case one thing is very much clear that even for claiming Rs. 70,000,the complainant-respondent had submitted the bills but the District Forum had accepted the via media in the manner that only up to Rs. 30,000 the claim of the complainant-respondent was found justified and no doubt as a rule the amount a
