Court upheld the validity of the surveyor's report in determining insurance claims, emphasizing evidence over insurer claims of misrepresentation.

JUDGMENT

AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (RETD.), MEMBER

1. This Revision Petition is filed under Section 58 (1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“the Act”) read with Section 151 CPC , 1908, against the Order dated 10.11.2023 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (“State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 233 of 2023. In the impugned order dated 10.11.2023 the State Commission dismissed the appeal by the OP against the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur (“District Forum”) order in CC No. 33 of 2021 dated 23.05.2023 allowing the complaint.

2. For the convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the Appeal filed before the learned State Commission.

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that he obtained a comprehensive insurance policy No. VGC0624674000100) from OP, Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. for the period from 09.04.2020 to 06.04.2021, covering all types of risks related to his self-owned goods carriage vehicle Regn No. RJ-32-GC-0100, after paying the required premium. On 21.07.2020, during the policy period, the insured vehicle caught fire due to an electrical short circuit near Daduka, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur, while returning from Bharatpur after unloading goods. The vehicle was completely destroyed in the fire, resulting in a total loss. He immediately informed both the local police and OP about the incident. OP appointed a surveyor, to whom the complainant submitted all necessary documents and information. The surveyor advised him to obtain a repair estimate, which was done and was estimated as Rs. 49,10,133, which was significantly higher than the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs.31,00,000, clearly indicating that the damage amounted to total loss. Despite repeated follow-ups and a legal notice, OP failed to settle the rightful claim of Rs. 31,00,000, leaving the complainant with no option but to file this complaint, seeking refund of the IDV amount along with compensation for mental agony, deficiency in service, and litigation costs.

4. On issue of notice, the OP/Insurer submitted a reply complaint and accepted the insurance policy and alleged that after OP received information about the accident, the complainant‟s insurance claim No. CV00060473 was registered. The requisite information was not provided by him despite letters dated 15.09.2020, 29.09.2020 and 06.11.2020. According to the statements and video recording taken by the researcher appointed by OP Company, Hansraj was not present and he came to the spot after about half an hour. At the time of the accident, the said vehicle was being driven by another person whose name and address have been deliberately hidden by the complainant from the OP. The Spot survey was done by the said surveyor on 21.07.2020 and final survey was done on 22.07.2020, in which damage to the said vehicle was estimated at Rs. 23,47,891, but due to the reasons given by the OP, the complainant is not entitled to receive any kind of compensation, But even if any amount is found to be payable, it cannot exceed the amount of damages decided by the surveyor. Therefore, OP sought the complaint be dismissed.

5. The learned District Forum considered the facts and accordingly passed the following order:-

“ORDER

The complaint of the complainant against the opposition insurance company is accepted and the order is passed as follows:-

(i) The opposite insurance company pay to the complainant Rs. 31,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakh) on the basis of total