Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Maa Yog Shanti - Respondent
First Appeal No. 562 of 2015
Decided On : 18-12-2017
For the Appellants :Mr. Rajeev M. Roy, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. B.K. Upadhyay and Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocates.
The report of the surveyor appointed under the Insurance Act, 1938 is an important document for consideration of the insurance claim and cannot be brushed aside without any cogent reasons. The Consumer Forum does not have the power to appoint a second surveyor when the report of the first surveyor is available.
Headnote:
Insurance Claim - Vehicle Insurance - Insurance Act, 1938 - Section 13(1)(c), Section 13(1)(f and g), Section 13(4)(iv), Section 13(4)(v) - The court discussed the power of the Consumer Forum to appoint a second surveyor and the relevance of the report of the surveyor appointed under the Insurance Act, 1938. It highlighted key legal provisions and their interpretations, emphasizing the importance of the report of the first surveyor and the limitations on appointing a second surveyor.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent purchased a vehicle insured by the appellant. After an accident, the insurance company assessed the loss at Rs. 1,99,764.54, while the complainant claimed Rs. 11,54,320 as the total purchase value and demanded punitive damages. The State Commission partly accepted the complaint, ordering the appellant to pay Rs. 9,93,891 with interest and litigation costs. The appellant appealed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the appeal, modifying the State Commission's order. It held that the report of the second surveyor appointed by the State Commission cannot be considered for settling the insurance claim. The court directed the appellant to pay Rs. 2,36,123 to the complainant along with interest and costs.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the complaint before the State Commission, the jurisdictional value, the appointment of a second surveyor, and the assessment of loss.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the report of the surveyor appointed under the Insurance Act, 1938 and discussed the limitations on appointing a second surveyor by the Consumer Forum. It also addressed the assessment of loss and depreciation in the insurance claim.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the State Commission's order and directing the appellant to pay Rs. 2,36,123 to the complainant along with interest and costs.
ORDER :
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
This appeal has been filed by the appellant, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. and others against the order dated 9.4.2015 passed by the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh in C.C. No. 27 of 2012.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant purchased a vehicle Mahindra Scorpio bearing registration No. UP-70-BQ-1235 on 14.10.2011 for Rs. 11,54,320 including the accessories. The vehicle was insured by the appellant/OP and the insurance was valid from 20.10.2011 to 19.10.2012. The vehicle was insured for Rs. 9,93,891. The vehicle met with an accident while going from Allahabad to Jhusi on the Shastri Bridge on 3.12.2011 and collided with a standing truck while saving a dog who suddenly appeared in front of the vehicle. The information was given on-line to the OP Insurance Company. Insurance Company appointed surveyor Mr. Anil Kumar who visited the workshop/garage where the vehicle had been taken for repairs on 9.12.2011. The surveyor submitted its report and assessed the loss at Rs. 1,99,764.54. The case of the complainant is that the complainant got the estimate of repairs from the United Automobiles on the advice of the Insurance Company and the same was sent to the Insurance Company. The estimate prepared by the dealer was for Rs. 9,54,561 The complainant then filed a Consumer Complaint No. 27 of 2012 before the State Commission requesting that the insured amount should be treated as the total purchase value of the vehicle which was Rs. 11,54,320 and then additional sum of Rs. 10 lakh was demanded as punitive damages for not settling the claim as total loss.
3. The complaint was resisted by the OP/appellant on the ground that the invoice value of the vehicle was only Rs. 9,93,891 and accordingly the insurance was effected only for this amount. The Insurance Company further informed that the surveyor was appointed and he has assessed value of the loss at Rs. 1,99,764.54. The Insurance Company also took the preliminary objection of pecuniary jurisdiction stating that the value of the vehicle was less than Rs. 20 lakh, hence the State Commission did not have the jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. The State Commission vide its order dated 26.2.2014 appointed another surveyor as there was huge difference between the loss assessed by the first surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company and estimate prepared by the dealer. The second surveyor Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh submitted its report dated 15.5.2014 and assessed the loss as Rs. 9,43,916.
4. The State Commission after hearing submissions of both the parties allowed the complaint vide its order dated 9.4.2015 as under:
“Complainant’s complaint is partly accepted and opposite parties 1 to 3 Insurance Company order to pay Rs. 9,93,891 to the complainant with 6 percent annual simple interest from the date of filing of complaint till the date of payment. Insurance Company would be at liberty to receive the salvage themselves desired and pay the aforesaid amount or the Insurance Company can offer to the complainant to keep the salvage herself if she desire and deduct the value of salvage Rs. 30,000 from the insured amount to the complainant. Complainant is also entitled to receive Rs. 1,500 as litigation costs from the opposite parties, certified copy of this judgment be made available to the parties as per rule.”
5. Aggrieved with the order of the State Commission, the present appeal has been preferred by the OPs/appellants herein.
6. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The learned Counsel for the appellants stated that the complaint was not maintainable before the State Commission as the total insured value was Rs. 9,93,891. The State Commission should have seen that the excessive compensation or penal damage was not required to be added for the value of the complaint. The issue of pecuniary jurisdiction was raised in the written statement filed by the OPs. However, the State Commission ha
