IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986)



Date of Decision: 12.03.2009



Appeal No. FA-07/917

(Arising out of Order dated 04.10.07 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Central, Maharana Partap Bus Terminal, Mezzanine Floor, Kashmere Gate, New in Complaint Case No. 355/05)



New India Insurance Co. Ltd. … Appellant

5th Floor, Jeevan Bharti Building,

Tower-II, 124, Connought Circus,

New Delhi – 110001.





Versus





Mr. Ishwar Singh … Respondent

S/o Sh. Baljit Singh, Through

Vill. & P.O. Mitron, Mr.Anuj Jain,

Nazafgarh, Advocate

New Delhi-110043.



CORAM:



Justice J.D. Kapoor … President

Ms. Rumnita Mittal … Member





1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?















Justice J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral)



1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.10.2007 passed by the District Forum directing the appellant to make the following payments to the respondent against an insurance claim arising from the accident to the vehicle insured with the appellant :-



(i) To pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- less Rs. 500/-(value of salvage) with interest @ 9%(simple interest) from 24.03.03 till realization.

(ii) To pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent as compensation.

(iii) To pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation.



2. The case of the respondent leading to the impugned order, in brief, is that he got his vehicle i.e. Tata Truck bearing No. HR-5A 9819 insured with the appellant vide Policy No. 312302/31/01/02199 for the period from 04.12.2001 to 03.12.2002. The vehicle was damaged extensively in an accident on 13.08.02. the respondent informed appellant about the accident and incurred a loss of Rs. 1,23,134/- on its repair. After repair, the respondent applied to appellant for reimbursement of the expenses incurred on the repair of vehicle. But initially, the appellant avoided settlement of claim but finally, appellant informed that appellant had settled the claim of Rs. 65,962/- subject to deposit of salvage. But the respondent did not accept this settlement of claim and termed the action of appellant i.e. to settle the claim arbitrarily, as deficiency in service on the part of appellant. The respondent prayed for directions to appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,23,154/- with interest @ 18% per annum, cost and compensation.

3. In reply, the appellant pleaded that it settled the claim of Rs. 65,962/- as per report of surveyor. Appellant denied that claim was settled arbitrarily or that there was any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4. Appellant filed affidavit of Mr. A.K. Bambral, Divisional Manager. Arguments of the respondent were heard as none appeared for appellant on the date of arguments. The District Forum framed the following question involved in the complaint i.e. –

“Whether the surveyor assessed the loss of Rs. 65,962/- on the basis of bills submitted by respondent or on his personal knowledge.”

5. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the District Forum found the report of the surveyor deficient inasmuch as that it did not assess the value on the basis of bills submitted by respondent but on his own estimates. The assessor assessed the value of chasis frame (3015 horse) as Rs. 50,000/- while bill of the dealer M/s Kohli and Co. shows the price of chasis frame is Rs. 74,536/-. The dealer M/s Kohli and Co. is the authorized dealer in respect of spare parts of Tata Motors. Likewise the surveyor did not consider the price of side panel. Bill shows the price of this part was Rs. 2,998/- while the surveyor assessed it at Rs. 2,000/-. It is not based on bill but only on the estimate of the surveyor.

6. As against this, the respondent has filed the copies of the following bills :-



S.No.


Date


Amount

i


13.09.2002


Rs. 77,534/-

ii


Labour bill


Rs. 12,800/-

iii


Bill of Joginder Baller


Rs. 1,400/-

iv


Bill of Mahesh Kumar


Rs. 4,800/-

v


Bill of Nanaksar


Rs. 2,700/-

vi


Bill of GM Glass


Rs. 2,400/-

vii


Bill of Coral Crane


Rs. 4,000/-

viii


Bill of New Vishav Karma


Rs. 18,500/-





7. The District Forum has gone into extensive details while distinguishing the amount of bills and loss assessed by the surveyor and the actual repairs made by the repairers and the bills placed by him.

8. The finding of fact returned by the District Forum does not suffer from any infirmity of any kind whatsoever and therefore the appeal is devoid of merit.

9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.







10. The impugned order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

11. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.

12. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.

13. Announced on 12th day of March, 2009.