Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 13266
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Dr. P.K. Prusty, Member, Miss. S.L. Pattnaik, Member
Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Bijay Bihari Patra – Respondent
First Appeal 94/2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/S. G.P. Dutta
For the Respondents: M/s P.K. Nanda
The court reaffirmed the importance of surveyor reports in insurance claims and corrected improper damages awarded by the lower forum.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 - Vehicle Insurance - Claim for damage after accident - Claim settled based on surveyor's report - Op 1 failed to settle claim within stipulated time and cited non-submission of documents as an excuse - The forum awarded damages but appeal was filed on grounds of improper consideration of facts. (Paras 4, 10, 11)
(B) Appeal - The appellate authority re-evaluated the evidence presented, establishing that all requisite documents were submitted and the surveyor’s assessed loss should be accepted over the OP's estimate, thereby correcting the lower forum’s decision. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The complainant’s vehicle, insured with OP 1, suffered damage in an accident during the insurance coverage period. An admission of lack of appearance before the forum by the OP led to an ex parte decision.
Findings of Court:
The surveyor’s assessment of Rs. 31,096 was deemed appropriate for settlement, as opposed to the District Forum's erroneously higher award based on lack of evidence.
Issues: Whether the complainant provided all necessary documents for the claim and if the OP's non-appearance compromised due process.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate authority found that the submission of required documents was substantiated and the surveyor's report, free from bias, was to be upheld as the correct basis for the damage award.
Result: The impugned order is set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. insurance claim litigation initiation. (Para 2) |
| 2. ex parte proceedings due to non-appearance of op leading to a decision based on available evidence. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. surveyor's report deemed critical in assessing damage claims and evaluating op's arguments. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. assessment of required documentation for claim affirmation. (Para 9) |
| 5. deficiency in service by the insurance company. (Para 10 , 11) |
Vizianagaram. A.P- 53500 For the Appellant -M/S. G.P, Dutta Advocate For the Respondent M/s P.K.Nanda,Advocate -2 PRES ENT DR. P.K. PRUSTY, MEMBER Miss. S.L. PATTNAIK,M EMBER DATED THE 14" day of May 2024 ORD ER DR.P.K.PRUSTY, MEMBER The appeal is filed by the appellant U/S 15o f erstwhile Consumer ProtectionA ct, 1986 (c alled the Act) against the exparte order dt. 07-01-2014 passed in C.CC ase No. 92 of 2013 by the Learned District Cosumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Koraput at Jeypore. The parties in this appeal shall be referredt o their respectives tatus before the Learned DistrictF orum, Korput at Jeypore.
2 The back drop of the present case is as follows. The complainanti s the owner of vehicle Indica VZ DLS bearing Regd No. OR 10E 6883 which was insured with O.P 1w ith the validity from 18-08-2012 to 17-08-2013.
During the validityo f the insurance, the vehicle met with an accident on 27
08-2012 near Duruguda , Koraput & sustained damage of the vehicle. The -3 incident was reported to the police immediatelyo n 27-08-2012 and Koraput Town PS registered the case Vide No. 68 dt. 27-08-12. The complainanta ls0 intimated the incident to the insurer on the same day. It is further the case of the complainantt hat after release of the vehicle by the police on 08-09-12, he shifted the vehicle to workshop of O.P.2 for repair. Further the complainant had also filed claim before O.P.1 on 28-08-12.I t is also the case of the complainantt hat as per the letter of 0.P.1 he has filed all required documents on 17-12-2012v ide Regd post. Since O.P1 did not settle the claim for repair of the vehicle the complainant sent reminders but OP issued closure of the claim vide its letter dt. l1-02-2013. Finding no other way the complainant filed the complaintb efore the learned District Forum.
3. O.P 1 & 0.P.2 did not appear even notice issued by the Learned District Forum . Hence, Learned District Forum set O.P.le xparte on 30-12
2013a nd proceeded with the hearing of the complaint.
4 On hearing of the complainant & perusal of materials on record Learned District Forum has passed the following order.
-4 XXX XXX XXX "Hence ordered that the complaintp etition is allowed in part and the O.P No.l directed to pay Rs. 98.936/-towards cost of repair of the vehicle with interest@ 12 % P.A. from the date of filing of this case i.e 26-08-2013 and Rs. 14,000/-towards transportationc harges besides Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation and guard charges if any demanded by OP no.2 to the complainantw ithin 30d ays from the date of communication of this order"
5. Aggrieved with the order passed by the District Fourm, OP-1 preferred the present appeal. It is submitted by the appellant that the District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the facts in proper perspectives. It is submitted that the Koraput Branch office of the appellant is under the Berhamur Divisional Office. It is further submitted that during the proceeding of the complainant case, severe filin hit Berhampur which dislocated the entire system for several months .For this reason the OP could not appear before District Forum and could not submit the written version.
This fact was not taken into consideration by the Learned District Forum. , -5 Learned District Forumw ithout apprcciating facts had proceeded with the case &passed order which is not sustainable, Thec omplainant did not submit the requisite documents for which the claim was closed and hence the impugned order is arbitrary whiclh is liable to bc set aside.
It is further submitted by the appellant that he has ap
