Back
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
V.B.Gupta, Suresh Chandra, JJ.
United India Insurance Co.Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Virender and Mr.Nirender -Respondent
Revision Petition No. 2942 of 2006, (From the order dated 07.06.2006 in FA No. 820/2005 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh)
Decided On : 13-5-2011
The surveyor's report is not binding and conclusive, and can be departed from based on legitimate reasons.
Headnote:
Insurance - Consumer Dispute - - [Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Consumer Protection Act, 1986] - The court discussed the valuation report, surveyor's report, and the Insured's Declared Value (IDV) as the reasonable and reliable basis for determining the compensation amount payable by the insurance company. The court also highlighted the legal principle that the surveyor's report is not binding and conclusive, and can be departed from based on legitimate reasons.
Fact of the Case:
The complainants purchased a car, insured it with the petitioner Insurance Co., and filed a complaint when the insurance amount was not disbursed. The District Forum directed the Insurance Co. to disburse the insurance amount with interest and litigation costs. The State Commission partly allowed the appeal by reducing the rate of interest.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the order of the District Forum and the findings of the State Commission, emphasizing the deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner Insurance Co. and the reliance on the valuation report and IDV for determining the compensation amount.
Issues: The issues revolved around the valuation of the car, the surveyor's report, the consent letter, and the determination of the compensation amount payable by the insurance company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal principle that the surveyor's report is not binding and conclusive, and can be departed from based on legitimate reasons. It also emphasized the reliance on the valuation report and IDV for determining the compensation amount.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, confirming the impugned order of the State Commission.
Suresh Chandra, Member:-
The petitioner Insurance Co. has filed this revision petition against the order dated 07.06.2006 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh ('State Commission' for short) in appeal no.820 of 2005 whereby the State Commission has upheld the order dated 18.02.2005 of the District Forum with the modification of reduction of rate of interest from 12% to 9%.
2. Briefly put, the factual matrix of the case are that the complainants, respondents herein, purchased a Tata India Model-2000 car bearing Registration No.HR 22-D-0044 on loan and got it insured with the petitioner Insurance Co. through OP-2/Petitoner-2 vide its cover note no.731793 for a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- + Rs.10,000/- for and paid a sum of Rs.6,855/- as premium to the OP Insurance Co. The said car met with an accident on 23.02.2003 causing total damage to the vehicle for which necessary intimation was given by the respondents to OP-2 for paying the insured sum to them. Sh. Raj Kumar Singla, surveyor was deputed who investigated the matter. Thereafter, another surveyor Sh. Ved Prakash Sharma and Sh. Sunil Vashisht were appointed. Necessary documents were submitted to them and they assured that the case would be settled early. However, when no action was taken by the OP Insurance Co. for a considerable period, the complainants knocked the door of the consumer for a by lodging a complaint with the District Forum which was allowed by it by directing the OP Insurance Co. to disburse the insurance amount of Rs.2,40,000/-(Rs.2,30,000/- + Rs.10,000/-) of the car in question to the complainants after deducting the cost of the salvage of Rs.80,000/- assessed by the surveyors along with interest (a) 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e., 31.10.2003 till its final realization. The OP Insurance Co. was further directed to pay cost of litigation of Rs.1100/- to the complainants. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioners carried the same in appeal before the State Commission which came to be partly allowed in terms of the aforesaid impugned order dated 07.06.2006.
3. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. The State Commission while upholding the order of the District Forum, has recorded the following findings in its impugned order :-
"The valuation report dated 21.4.2003 of Shri Ved Parkash Sharma after deducting the depreciation on quarterly basis i.e. 7.5% had come to a finding that net amount payable is Rs.2,22,000/- out of the insured sum of Rs.2,40,000/-. While working out the market value of the car in question it is stated that on 23.02.2003, the date of loss, the valuation of the car was Rs. 1,80,000/-. He further determined the valuation of the salvage asRs.80,000/-. Therefore, he recommended that liability of the insurance company comes to Rs.one lac only. Shri Sunil Vashist has dittoed the report of Shri Ved Parkash Sharma. Shri Raj Kumar in his separate report dated 1.5.2003 has stated that on the date of accident Shri Darbara was driving the vehicle and as a result of the accident extensive damage was caused to the vehicle. When he inspected the same at the spot, he assessed the market value of the vehicle as Rs. 1,80,000/- and after deducting the salvage value of Rs.80,000/- determined the insurance liability to the value of Rs. one lac. Consent letter Annexure A6 has also been placed on record which indicates that Narender Kumar had agreed to receive a sum of Rs.one lac as the damage caused to the car as a result of mutual negotiation settlement. The definite stand taken from the side of the complainant is that his signature were obtained on blank papers. Another surprising feature in this case is that the consent letter which has been placed on record is undated. Even it is the case of the opposite parties that this consent letter was given during the period. The investigation was being made but still this sum was not paid to the claimant, r
