Appeal No.1372/08

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. V. Kishore Singh


Before:


Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President

Mr.G.S.Hora-Member


Shri Jitendra Mitruka,counsel for the appellant

Shri S.P.Gandhi,counsel for the respondent


Date of judgement : 15.05.2009


BY THE STATE COMMISSION.


This appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company against the order dated 9.6.08 passed by the District Forum,Ajmer in complaint no.396/07,by which the complaint filed by 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.49822/- minus Rs.15743/- = Rs.34,079/-, alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint and further to pay Rs.1500/- as amount of cost of litigation to the complainant respondent.

2. It arises in the following circumstances:


That the complainant respondent had filed a complaint against the appellant insurance company before the District Forum,Ajmer on 6.11.07 interalia stating that he had got his car bearing no.RJ.01.GA.1666 insured with the appellant insurance company for the period 26.9.06 to 25.9.07 for a sum of Rs.4,66,450/-. It was further stated in the complaint that on 19.6.07 the said vehicle had met with an accident and had got

2


damaged and information of that accident was also given by the complainant respondent to the office of the appellant insurance company and after the spot survey, the vehicle was got repaired from the authorised dealer Kamal Automobiles Pvt. Limited and in getting the repair of that vehicle a sum of Rs.50,000/- were spent, but the appellant insurance company through letter dated 8.8.07 had offered a sum of Rs.15743/- but no doubt, that amount was accepted by the complainant respondent ,but protest petition was lodged on 22.8.07 claiming that he was entitled to more amount than Rs.15743/- and since that amount was not paid,therefore, the complaint was filed claiming Rs.35,000/- more.


A reply was filed by the appellant insurance company on 25.3.08 before the District Forum and in the reply it was stated that the amount which was paid through letter dated 8.8.07 was correct one and further since it was accepted by the complainant respondent ,therefore,he has no right to reagitate the matter and he was not entitled to more amount and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.


The District Forum after hearing both the parties through the impugned order dated 9.6.08 had come to the conclusion that the complainant respondent had spent a sum of Rs.49822/- in getting the repair of the vehicle and since only Rs.15743/- were paid therefore,the complainant respondent was entitled to the difference of that amount that comes to Rs.34079/-.


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 amount which was assessed by their surveyor and thus the same was rightly paid and the complainant respondent is not entitled to more amount and to that extent,appeal be

3


allowed.

4. On the other hand,the learned counsel for the complainant respondent has supported the impugned order.


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


6. In this case,there is no dispute on the point that the report of the surveyor had not been produced by the appellant insurance company, only the assessment sheet had been produced marked as annex.R.2. On the other hand,the complainant respondent had filed a tax invoice prepared by Nidhikamal Automobiles (P) Ltd which shows that the complainant respondent had spent a sum of Rs.49822/- in getting the vehicle repaired. No doubt,as a general preposition of law report of the surveyor should be taken into consideration while making an assessment of the damage to the vehicle, but since in this case when the same was not produced by the appellant insurance company,therefore,that assessment sheet could not be substituted for the report of the surveyor as final assessment.


7. Taking into consideration that no doubt,the complainant respondent had paid a sum of Rs.49822/- in getting the repair, but from that amount depreciation value of the parts fitted with the vehicle should be taken into consideration and thus this Commission is of the view that a sum of Rs.15743/- had already been received by the complainant respondent and taking into consideration some depreciation value, a sum of Rs.20,000/- are further be ordered to be paid by the appellants in place of Rs.34079/-. It is made clear that had the survey report would have been produced,the position would have been different one.


8. For reasons as stated above,it is held that the complainant respondent is entitled to Rs.20,000/- more in place of Rs.34,079/- apart

4


from Rs.15743/- with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint and to that extent this appeal deserves to be allowed.


9. The result is that the appellant insurance company would pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- more in place of Rs.34079/-, to the complainant respondent with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint on Rs.20,000/-. Rest order is maintained. It is further made clear that apart from Rs.15743/- the complainant respondent would get Rs.20,000/- more as stated above.



Member President