Appeal No.974/08


Vipin Ladha Appellant

V.

1.Reliance General Insurance Co.,Mumbai

2.Reliance General Insurance Co.,Jaipur

3.Abhishek Balala,Agent,Reliance General Insurance Co.

Respondents


Before:


Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President

Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member


Shri D.M.Mathur,counsel for the appellant

Shri Virendra Agarwal,counsel for res.no.1 & 2

None for res.no.3



Date of judgement: 9.4.2009


This appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant against the order dated 30.4.08 passed by the District Forum,Chittorgarh in complaint no.343/07,by which the complaint of the complainant appellant was dismissed.


It may be stated here that the complainant appellant had filed a complaint against the respondents before the District Forum,Chittorgarh on 23.11.07 interalia stating that his Centro car bearing no.MP.09.HB.9354 was got insured with the res.no. 1 & 2 insurance company for the period 19.4.07 to 18.4.08 for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-.It was further stated in the complaint that on 4.5.07,the car had met with an

2



accident and information of that incident was given by the complainant appellant to the office of the res.no.1 & 2 insurance company where a surveyor was appointed and in getting the repair of the car a sum of Rs.47728/- were spent,but res.no.1 & 2 insurance company had sent a cheque dated 26.7.04 for a sum of Rs.24352/- which was received by the complainant appellant on 3.9.07 and for the remaining amount the complaint was filed.


A reply was filed by the res.no.1 & 2 before the District Forum on 16.2.08 and in the reply it was stated that the amount as assessed by the surveyor was sent to the complainant appellant and the same was accepted by the complainant appellant,hence no case,complaint be dismissed.


The District Forum after hearing both the parties,through the impugned order had dismissed the complaint interalia holding that since the amount in question was accepted by the complainant appellant in full and final settlement of the claim,therefore,more amount was not payable.


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


So far as the question that the amount in question was accepted by the complainant appellant in full and final settlement of the claim is concerned, but since the amount was offered by the respondents on the basis of the survey report of Shri Rajesh Kumar Goel dated 8.6.07 who had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.24852/-,therefore,if the complainant appellant feels aggrieved from that report,he should approach the civil court as the report of the surveyor should be given weightage .


3



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.


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.


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


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 to more amount than assessed by the surveyor and if the complainant feels that he is entitled to more amount for that 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. However it may be stated here that the time spent before the District Forum as well as before this Commission shall be set of by the concerned 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 case of Laxmi Engineering Works V. PSG Industrial Institute

4




reported in 1995(III) SCC 583.


For reasons as stated above,this appeal filed by the complainant appellant deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. However 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.




Member President