IMPORTANT POINT
Damage to vehicle in accident – Surveyor is duty bound to properly calculate loss occurred to insured vehicle.

ORDER

Ms. Kumkum Rani, President—This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against judgment and order dated 31.01.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dehradun (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 196 of 2015 styled as Sh. Sunil Thapa vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed directing the insurance company to pay Rs.1,75,000/- alongwith costs of litigation Rs.10,000/- to the complainant, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to get interest @ 8% per annum from the date of submitting the claim before the Insurance Company till actual payment.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle No. UK07-TA-5752 (hereinafter referred as ‘subject vehicle’) which was insured with the opposite party vide policy No. 461000/31/14/6300004617 for the period commencing from 08.02.2015 to 07.02.2016 for sum insured of Rs.4,18,500/-. An accident of subject vehicle took place on dated 11.02.2015 near Aamwala, Premnagar, Dehradun, information thereof was immediately given to the opposite party’s office. After receiving the information of the occurrence, the opposite party has deputed a surveyor Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, who made the spot survey on dated 11.02.2015. After inspection of the surveyor Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, the subject vehicle was permitted to authorised garage of Force Company for its repair. The above surveyor after meeting the engineer of the company assured the complainant to submit the report after assessing the loss occurred to the subject vehicle and apprised that the compensation shall be according to the said report. After the assurance of the surveyor, the subject vehicle was left to the Force Company for further formalities and its repair, so that the subject vehicle might be made in running condition after the requisite repair and after replacement of necessary parts of the subject vehicle. As per engineer of the company, an estimate to the tune of Rs.2,39,057/- for repair work was given to the complainant. After repair of the subject vehicle, it was apprised by the workshop to the complainant that an expense of Rs.2,12,912/- was incurred in the work of repair to the subject vehicle and directed the appellant to take back the subject vehicle. The complainant after making full payment of the repair work to the Force Company, took the subject vehicle and the bills of repair work was tendered to the surveyor on dated 02.04.2015 alongwith claim form. After expiry of 15 days, the complainant contacted the Insurance Company, then the Insurance Company apprised the complainant that his claim comes to the tune of Rs.92,000/- as per surveyor report, whereas after perusing the survey report, the complainant found that the surveyor has not calculated Rs.70,000/- the cost of parts of the subject vehicle and Rs.24,000/- towards labour charges and the claim was not properly settled by the Surveyor. The opposite party adopted unfair trade practice and committed deficiency in service, therefore, the complaint was submitted.

3. The opposite party - Insurance Company did not submit its written statement inspite of sufficient service of notice as well as inspite of afforded several opportunities to file the written statement, therefore on dated 03.03.2016 the opportunity for filing written statement was closed and the matter was fixed for complainant’s evidence.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant and after taking into consideration the facts and evidence on record, the District Commission has passed the impugned judgment and order on dated 31.01.2018 wherein and whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint in the above terms.

5. On having been aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the District Commission, the opposite party has preferred the present appeal as ap