IMPORTANT POINT
Claim for Rs. 80,000/- allowed for damages caused to vehicle in an accident.

ORDER

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Ashok Kumar Mishra challenging the order dated 29.08.2013 passed in Appeal No. 1174 of 2010 by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Lucknow (in short the State Commission).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had purchased a Tata mini truck in the year 1998. The petitioner purchased an insurance policy for his truck from the opposite party/ respondent No.1 herein with IDV of Rs.4,80,000 and the said policy was valid from 23.09.2000 to 22.09.2001. The said truck met with an accident on 14.01.2001 due to failure of brakes. The petitioner informed the insurance company and the insurance company appointed a surveyor who visited the spot and submitted his preliminary report. The complainant then got his vehicle repaired and submitted the claim to the insurance company. It is the case of the complainant that no response was received from the insurance company and therefore, he gave a legal notice to the insurance company on 05. 06.2002 but received no reply. Consequently, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum being CC No. 253 of 2002. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party by filing the written statement stating that in reply to the legal notice, the insurance company had informed the complainant that after receiving the report of the spot surveyor a letter was sent to the complainant dated 11.04.2001 to inform where the vehicle was being repaired so that the final survey could be conducted. However, no response was received from the complainant and therefore claim was closed. The District Forum, however, allowed the complaint vide its order dated 29.05. 2010 and directed the insurance company to pay a sun of Rs. 1,46,680 as repairing charges along with Rs.10,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000 as litigation expenses, thus totaling Rs. 1,57,680 to the complainant along with 6% per annum interest from the date of filing of the complaint. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party insurance company preferred an appeal before the State Commission being FA 1174 of 2010. The State Commission vide its order dated 29.08.2013 accepted the appeal of the insurance company and dismissed the complaint.

3. Hence the present revision petition by the petitioner complainant.

4. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. The learned counsel for the complainant stated that after the primary survey, the complainant got the vehicle repaired from the authorized dealer and the insurance claim was submitted to the insurance company, but there was no response from the insurance company. It was the duty of the insurance company to have appointed a final surveyor or the first surveyor appointed by the insurance company should have done the final survey and the loss assessment, however nothing was done. It is wrong to say that the insurance company ever replied to the legal notice given by the complainant. The alleged letter dated 11.04.2001 was never sent by the insurance company and was never received by the complainant and this is a forged letter to cover up the inaction on the part of the insurance company. The State Commission has wrongly relied on this letter and has accepted the assertion of the insurance company that the final survey could not be done as the reply of this alleged letter dated 11.04.2001 was not received from the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant further stated that though the letter bears the date of 10.04.2001, however, the details of registry mentioned on this letter reveals that it was dispatched only on 11.04.2003. Thus, there was no question of receiving this letter by the complainant.

5. It was further pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant that the primary surveyor in his report has clearly given the details of the damage suffered by the vehicle in the accident. Thus, it is clear that the