Appeal No.2077/06


1.Subedar

2.Azad Khan

3.Nizza Appellants

V.

The New India Insurance Co.Ltd. Respondent

Before:


Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President

Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member


Shri Raj Kumar Sharma,counsel for the appellants

Shri Rishi Pal Agarwal,counsel for the respondent



Date of judgement: 26.3.2009


This appeal has been filed by the complainant appellants against the order dated 6.12.06 passed by the District Forum,Alwar in complaint no. 382/05 ,by which the complaint of the complainant appellants was allowed in the manner that the respondent insurance company was directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,012/- the amount as assessed by the surveyor with interest @ 7% p.a wef 30.8.05 and further to pay Rs.2000/- as amount of compensation for mental agony.


It arises in the following manner:


That the complainant appellants had filed a complaint against the respondent insurance company before the District Forum,Alwar on 14.9.05 interalia stating that a tractor bearing registration

2


no.RJ.02.R.2689 was got insured by the complainant appellant with the respondent insurance company for the period 27.4.04 to 26.4.06 for a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-. It was further stated in the complaint that on 27.6.05 when the tractor in question was coming from the field which was sweft away with the flow of the water and had fallen in the pit as a result of which the vehicle in question was damaged and information of that incident was given to the office of the respondent insurance company and in getting the repair of that vehicle,a sum of Rs.62,409/- were spent and a claim was prefered before the office of the respondent insurance company but the claim was repudiated by the respondent insurance company through letter dated 23.8.05 interalia stating on the ground that at the time of accident,more persons than authorised were sitting in the tractor and that act had amounted to violation of the terms of the policy. Thereafter the present complaint was filed.


A reply was filed by the respondent insurance company on 13.1.06 and in the reply they have taken the same pleas which were taken in the repudiation letter dated 23.8.05 and it was further stated that the surveyor appointed by the respondent insurance company, Shri Roshan Lal Chawla in his report dated 16.8.05 had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.10,012/-,and,therefore,the claim was rightly repudiated and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.


The District Forum after hearing both the parties,through the impugned order dated 6.10.06 had found that the repudiation of the claim by the respondent insurance company was not justified and the amount as assessed by the surveyor was ordered to be paid by the respondent insurance company to the complainant appellants.


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


3



In this appeal,the main contention of the learned counsel for the complainant appellants is that since a sum of Rs.62,409/- had been incurred in getting the repair of the vehicle,therefore,awarding of a sum of Rs.10,012/- on the basis of the report of the surveyor was not justified and appeal be allowed.


In our considered opinion,this appeal for enhancement of the amount as assessed by the surveyor has to be dismissed because of the simply reason 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.


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.

For reasons as stated above, the findings of the District Forum are liable to be confirmed one and this appeal filed by the complainant appellants for enhancement of the amount deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. However,liberty is given to the complainant appellants to approach the civil court for claiming more compensation

4



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 as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Laxmi Engineering Works V. PSG Industrial Institute reported in 1995(III) SCC 583.




Member President