Appeal No.1415/08

National Insurance Co.Ltd. V. Bajrang Lal

Appeal No.1628/08

Bajranglal V. National Insurance Co.Ltd.



Before

Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President

Mr.Sikander Punjabi-Member


Shri Dinesh Kala,counsel for the appellant insurance company

Shri Prashant Sharma,counsel for the complainant respondent




Date of judgement : 28.05.2009


BY THE STATE COMMISSION.


These two appeals are being decided by this common judgement as both have been preferred against the order dated 2.7.08 passed by the District Forum,Sikar in complaint no.358/07.


Appeal No.1415/08


This appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company against the order dated 2.7.08 passed by the District Forum,Sikar in complaint no.358/2007,by which the complaint of the complainant respondent was allowed against the appellant insurance company in the manner that the appellant insurance company was directed to pay a sum of Rs.43550/-, the amount as damage for the vehicle with interest @ 9% p.a wef 13.8.07 and if the above amount was

2



not paid within two months,the rate of interest charged would be 12% p.a and further to pay Rs.1000/- as amount of cost of litigation.


2. It arises in the following circumstances:


That the complainant respondent had filed a complaint against the appellant insurance company before the District Forum,Sikar on 30.11.07 interalia stating that his truck bearing registration no.RJ.23.G.2401 was got insured with the appellant insurance company for the period 7.10.06 to 6.10.07 for a sum of Rs.7,20,000/- . It was further stated in the complaint that the said truck had met with an accident on 27.10.06 in Tonk District for which a report bearing FIR no.146/06 was lodged on 27.10.06 with the police station,Dhar,District Tonk and information of the incident was also given by complainant respondent to the office of the appellant insurance company and in getting the repair of that truck a sum of Rs. 1,21,550/- were spent, but the claim of the complainant respondent was repudiated by the appellant insurance company through letter dated 13.8.07 in the following manner:


“Regarding above please note that G.R produced by you from M/s Bhumi Transport Co. is not genuine. As per our investigation report such named firm was closed before 3-4 years due to financial loss. One partner of above named firm is now working in Agarwal Transport Co.Transport Nagar,Kota. Therefore, you have produced fake GR and we are unable to settle your claim,your claim files is repudiated which please note.”


Thereafter the present complaint was filed.


A reply was filed by the appellant insurance company before the

3



District Forum on 15.4.08 and in the reply they have taken the same pleas which were taken in the repudiation letter dated 13.8.07 and it was further stated in the reply that after receiving the information of that accident,a surveyor was appointed who had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.43552/-. It was further replied that the investigator who was appointed to verify the papers had come to the conclusion that the complainant respondent had produced fake documents alongwith his claim and,therefore,on that basis,the claim was not payable at all and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.


The District Forum after hearing both the parties through the impugned order dated 2.7.08 had allowed the complaint as stated above interalia holding -


1.

that the averments of the appellant that the builty in question was a forged one was not found established
2.

that on point that the truck in question was overloaded was also not found established for want of evidence
3.

that thus the amount as assessed by the surveyor was ordered to be paid by the appellant insurance company to the complainant respondent.


Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company.


3. In this appeal,the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company is that the claim was rightly repudiated on ground of forged builty and,therefore,the findings recorded by the District Forum are erroneous one and be quashed and set aside and appeal be allowed.


4


4. On the other hand,the learned counsel for the complainant respondent has supported the impugned order and further argued that the amount as assessed by the surveyor was not justified and this appeal be dismissed and appeal filed by the complainant respondent be allowed.


5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.


6. In our considered opinion,the District Forum had rightly rejected the report dated 30.7.07 of Shri J.P.Bansal,investigator on ground of forged builty as if some of the partners had left,it does not mean that the firm could not function. Therefore,we are in agreement with the findings recorded by the District Forum on point of forged builty and this Commission is also of the view that the said builty could not be said to be a forged one.


7. Similarly on point of overloading,there is no evidence on record to prove that fact and thus this Commission is also of the same view as taken by the District Forum on this point.


8. Since the Surveyor Shri Sanjeev Saxena in his report dated 15.1.07 had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.44801.87,therefore,this Commission does not want to interfere even on point of compensation as the amount of compensation has been awarded on the basis of the report of the surveyor appointed by the appellant insurance company.


9. So far as the award of rate of interest is concerned,this Commission also does not want to interfere as the manner in which the interest has been awarded could not be said to be arbitrary. Thus this appeal filed by the appellant insurance company deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.


5


Appeal No.1628/08

10. This appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant for enhancement of the amount as according to the complainant appellant in getting the repair of the vehicle a sum of Rs.1,21,550/- were spent,therefore,the amount awarded by the District Forum to the tune of Rs.43550/- was not justified.


11. It may be stated here that the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Champalal V. Oriental Insurance Company reported in III(2008) CPJ 93 (NC) has held that as per the law it is the report of the surveyor which has to be given due weightage and the District Forum could not go into the question of quantum dispute as it will involve a detailed investigation,which could not be held in the summary proceedings under the provisions of the C.P.Act,1986.


12. The Hon'ble National Commission has further observed that in such cases the complainant would be free to either approach the civil court or approach to IRDA under the provision of 64UM of Insurance Act,or to invoke the condition of the policy relating to reference to Arbitration in case of quantum dispute.


13. Apart from that this Commission is of the view that the report of the surveyor should be given due weightage.


14. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission supra, this Commission is of the view that the complainant respondent is not entitled more amount and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. However if the complainant appellant intends to go to civil court for claiming more amount,liberty could be given to the complainant appellant and for that time spent before the District Forum as well as before this Commission shall be set of by the concerned

6


authorities where the proceedings for further compensation would be taken up as per provision of section 14 of Limitation Act as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works V. PSG Industrial Institue reported in 1995(III) SCC 583.


15. For reasons as stated above,this appeal filed by the complainant appellant is dismissed. Further liberty is given to the complainant respondent to approach the civil court for claiming more compensation and for that the time spent before the District Forum as well as before this Commission could be sought to be exempted u/s 14 of the Limitation Act.


16. Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.




Member President