Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/15/1538

CHANDRA BHAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAJAJ ALLIANCE GIC - Opp.Party(s)

02 Jul 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1538 OF 2015

(Arising out of order dated 26.11.2015 passed in C.C.No.81/2014 by District Commission,Rewa)

 

CHANDRABHAN SINGH.                                                                                      …         APPELLANT

 

                  Versus

 

MANAGER CLAIMS, BRANCH MANAGER,

BAJAJ ALLAINZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

AND ANOTHER.                                                                                                    …         RESPONDENTS.

 

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI              :      ACTING PRESIDENT

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY      :      MEMBER

 

                                      O R D E R

 

02.07.2024

 

            None for the appellant.

            Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents.

 

As per A. K. Tiwari:

            This appeal by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 26.11.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewa (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.81/2014 whereby the complaint filed by him has been allowed.  

2.                We have gone through the pleadings and documents as also the relief claimed in the complaint.  On going through the same it is revealed that the complainant’s truck bearing registration number MP-17

-2-

HH-1145 was insured with the opposite party-insurance company for the period w.e.f. 06.07.2012 to 05.07.2013 for IDV Rs.13,25,758/-. During the insurance cover on 19.02.2013 the subject vehicle was met with an accident of which FIR was lodged with the police and the intimation was given to the insurance company.

3.                The complainant alleged that on claim being made to the insurance company for a sum of Rs.7,35,400/- same was repudiated on the ground that the complainant failed to provide relevant documents for deciding the claim.  Alleging deficiency in service on part of the insurance company, the complainant/respondent filed a complaint before the District Commission. The District Commission allowed the complaint directing the insurance company to pay Rs.2,59,907/- to the complainant. Compensation of Rs.1,000/- along with costs of Rs.1,000/- is also awarded.

4.                Having regard to the aforesaid pleadings, and having gone through the record, we find that the subject vehicle met with an accident on 19.02.2013. On intimation received by the insurance company, the insurance company appointed surveyor who assessed the loss to the extent of Rs.2,82,405/- and after deducting salvage value of Rs.20,999/- the net payable amount came to Rs.2,59,907/-. The insurance company

-3-

pleaded that despite reminders when the complainant failed to provide requisite documents for deciding the claim, the claim was repudiated and the complainant was duly informed. D-6 is the survey report whereby the loss was assessed to the extent of Rs.2,59,907/-. The complainant has not challenged the said report.

5.                The complainant’s contention is that the insurance company assured him to pay the loss on the total loss basis, however, no such evidence in support of his contention has been filed. In this regard, it is submitted on behalf of insurance company that since the loss assessed by the surveyor was less than 75% of the IDV therefore, the claim cannot be settled on total loss basis.

6.                In view of the settled position of law, the surveryor’s report cannot be brushed aside unless it is proved otherwise.  Thus in view of the above discussion we are of a considered view that the complainant is entitled to get the amount as assessed by the Surveyor and the District Commission has rightly awarded that much amount to the complainant.  Thus, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order so as to interfere with the impugned order.

 

-4-

7.                In the result, this appeal for enhancement of compensation fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.           

 

                 (A. K. Tiwari)                 (Dr. Srikant Pandey)  

              Acting President                        Member