Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3253 OF 2002

New India Assurance Company Limited

..Appellant

Versus

Pradeep Kumar

..Respondent

J U D G E M E N T

R.M. LODHA, J.

In this appeal, by special leave, the appellant, New

India Assurance Company Ltd. (for short, ‘insurance company’)

has challenged the order dated September 14, 2001, passed

by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

(for short ‘National Commission’). By its order the National

Commission dismissed the revision petition filed by the

insurance company under Section 21(b) of The Consumer

Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘Act 1986’) and affirmed the

concurrent orders of State Commission for Redressal of

Consumer Disputes, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (for short, ‘State

Commission’) and Resident Consumer Disputes Redressal

Forum, Uttarkashi, (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby the

insurance company has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.

1,58,409/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to

the respondent Pradeep Kumar (for short ‘complainant’).

2.

The complainant is the owner of a heavy motor

vehicle (open body truck) bearing registration no. UP-07 F-

9095. The vehicle was registered on January 2, 1997 and

was insured vide Policy No. 31/04825 effective for the period

from November 8, 1997 to November 7, 1998. The said

vehicle loaded with potatoes met with an accident on

September 29, 1998, at Suman Kayari, near Nain Bagh, District

Tehri (Garhwal). The vehicle fell down into khud 300 feet

deep below the road. As a result of the accident, Murari

Rawat, driver of the truck, died. The accident was reported at

Police Station Patwar, Kharsot on September 30, 1998.

3.

The complainant claimed the expenses incurred by

him for repair of the truck from the insurance company and

2

the interest paid by him to the State Bank of India, Uttarkashi

as he obtained loan from that bank for repair of the truck. A

legal notice is also said to have been sent by the

complainant to the insurance company but of no avail. The

complainant then approached the District Forum alleging

deficiency in service by the insurance company and claimed

an amount of Rs.1,58,409/- along with interest at rate of 18%

per annum.

4.

The insurance company in its reply to the

complaint, stated that after receipt of intimation regarding the

accident, vehicle was surveyed by Surveyor, Manoj Kumar

Aggarwal and was taken to Himalaya Motor Workshop,

Dehradun by the owner. The vehicle was again surveyed by

approved surveyor Vivek Arora as the complainant had

complained that earlier Surveyor, Manoj Kumar Aggarwal,

had not made thorough investigation. The survey was then

conducted by Vivek Arora. As the insurance company was

not satisfied with the survey report submitted by Vivek Arora, it

got the vehicle surveyed again by another approved surveyor,

B.B. Garg. B.B. Garg had estimated the damages to the

vehicle to the extent of Rs.63,771/-. The insurance company,

3

then, approached the complainant for payment of this amount

but he refused to accept the same.

5.

It appears that before the District Forum, the

complainant had filed the affidavits of the persons from whom

the spare parts were purchased, repair work was got done and

charges paid to them. The complainant also submitted the

vouchers and bills of various spare parts and the payment

made towards labour charges. On the other hand, on behalf

of the insurance company, affidavit of one Pradeep Ghai was

filed along with survey reports of Vivek Arora and B.B. Garg.

6.

The District Forum, upon consideration of the

matter, held that there was deficiency in service on the part of

the insurance company and ordered them to pay a sum of

Rs.1,58,409/- along with interest at the rate