IMPORTANT POINT
Surveyor – The report submitted by a duly appointed surveyor is an important piece of evidence that must be given due weight, though it is not sacrosanct and may be disregarded if there is cogent evidence to the contrary.

ORDER

Saroj Yadav, Member—The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) by Kamla Devi (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner/Complainant) against IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Company Ltd., through Its G.M. (hereinafter referred as Respondent/Opposite Party/Insurance Company), assailing the Judgment and Order dated 02.01.2019 passed by the learned Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in F.A No. 177/2017, wherein the learned State Commission partly allowed the appeal and modified the judgment and order dated 14.03.2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in CC/58/2014.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant is the owner of a vehicle bearing no HP-63A-1350, insured with the Respondent under policy no.80874481 for Rs.5,38,118/- from 08.08.2012 to 07.08.2013. The vehicle was involved in an accident on 05.08.2013 and was extensively damaged. An FIR was filed, and the Complainant submitted a claim to the Respondent for the loss, with an estimated claim amount of Rs.3,50,000/. The complainant submitted all necessary documents and was assured by the Respondent that her claim would be settled within one to two months. Later, the Respondent requested the complainant’s consent to settle her claim for Rs.300,000/-, which she rejected, as the vehicle was a total loss and she was entitled to Rs.3,50,000/-. After waiting for a week, she issued a legal notice to the Respondent demanding settlement of her claim for Rs.3,50,000/-, but the Respondent did not respond to the above said notice. Aggrieved by the act of Respondent, the Complainant has filed the present complaint before the learned District Forum, seeking the following reliefs:—

(i) That the O.P may be directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- with interest @ 9% since 01.01.2014, till the date of actual payment;

(ii) That the O.P may be directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as punitive damages & compensation for the unnecessary mental, financial & physical harassment;

(iii) That the O.P. may be burdened with costs;

(iv) Any other order which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit in the ends of law & justice.

3. The Respondent/Opposite Party resisted the Complaint by stating that the complainant is not a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, as the vehicle was purchased for commercial purposes. The vehicle was insured for Rs.5,38,118/- on an Insured Declared Value (IDV) basis, with coverage from 08.8.2012 to 07.8.2013. The Respondent/Opposite Party was notified of the incident 12 days late, which violated the policy terms and deprived the insurer of the right to investigate. The Respondent/Opposite Party appointed a surveyor, Sh. Sandeep Sharma and Associates, to inspect the vehicle, and requested additional documents from the Complainant, which were not provided. Due to the lack of required documents, the surveyor submitted a report based on physical inspection, assessing the repair cost at Rs.95,000/-. The Respondent closed the claim as “No Claim”, when the Complainant failed to provide the requested documents.

4. The learned District Forum after appreciation of the facts of the case and perusal of record vide order dated 14.03.2017 has allowed the complaint against the Respondent/Opposite Party with the following directions:—

“Without going into the question whether the complainant was justified in withholding the original bills or the OP was justified in closing her claim case as ‘No Claim’ and the surveyor was justified in making assessment merely on the basis of physical inspection and final survey without taking into consideration the original bills we are of the considered view that it would be just and reasonable if the OP is directed to settle the claim of the complainant as follows:

The complainant shall furnish