Haryana

StateCommission

A/773/2017

BHARTI AXA GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HINDU PUBLIC SCHOOL - Opp.Party(s)

SACHIN OHRI

07 Jul 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.773 of 2017

                                                 Date of Institution: 27.06.2017

                                                               Date of Decision: 07.07.2022

 

Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd. First Floor Fairness Icon Survey No.28, next to Akmey Ballot Down Kundi ofouter ring road, Bangalore 560037 through its authorized signatory, Assistant Manager Legal, Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd, Mercantile House, 7^th Floor, 15, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught  Place, New Delhi 110001.

…..Appellant

Versus

Hindu Public School through Manager/Head Master Smt.Sunita, Hindu Public  School Bawal, Distt. Rewari.

…..Respondent

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr.Sachin Ohri, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.Gulshan Nandwani, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Delay of 12 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay.

2.       The brief facts of the case are that complainant got insured his school bus having registration No.HR-47B-3731 from the opposite parties. The insurance policy was valid from 01.04.2012 to 01.04.2013.  Unfortunately, on 24.04.2012, the vehicle met with an accident. Intimation about this incident was given to the opposite party telephonically following which surveyor was appointed, who inspected the vehicle in question and sent the vehicle  to Trupati Motors, Jonawas, Rewari for its repair. Respondent school spent Rs.60117/- on its repair, and finally filed the claim with the opposite party, however, the same was cleared for Rs.19,202/- only.  Authorised person of the school requested the OP to pay remaining amountalso , but, to no avail and served a legal notice through his counsel on 22.10.2012 but OP neither replied the notice nor paid the amount incurred on repair and compensation.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

3.      O.P. filed reply. It was submitted that upon intimation, OP appointed independent  surveyor, who assessed the loss to this vehicle to the tune of Rs.19,902/- only, which has been paid as full and final settlement of the claim. The complainant is not entitled for the remaining amount. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. 

4.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari ( Now, In short  “District Commission”) has allowed the complaint vide order dated 12.05.2017. Relevant para is reproduced below:-

“Resultantly, the present complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay the remaining amount of Rs.47,915/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the amount shall fetch interest @ 9% p.a. from today i.e. the date of decision till payment. The complainant is also allowed lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- against the opposite parties.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P.-appellant has preferred this appeal.

6.      This argument have been advanced by Sh.Sachin Ohri, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sh.Gulshan Nandwani, learned counsel for the respondent. With their kind assistance entire record of the appeal including the District Commission led on behalf of  both the parties has also been properly perused and examined.

7.      In appeal before this Commission, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that respondent’s claim was rightly assessed by the independent surveyor. The District Commission has failed to appreciate that surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.19,902/- as per the guideline  of Indian Motor Tariff Act and as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  The assessed loss of Rs.19,902/-, has already been paid being full and final settlement of the claim. The complainant is not entitled for any balance amount. He placed reliance upon  authority of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled New India Assurance Co. Vs. Kamal Nayan  2006 (4) CPJ 84.

8.      This Commission does not concur with the submission made on behalf of the appellant. A perusal of Annexure C-1 to C-3, invoices and letter of Tirupati Motors shows that the complainant had spent more than Rs.60,000/- on its repair. The vehicle in question was got repaired  from authorized dealer Tirupati Motors.   After incident, the complainant immediately intimated the insurance company.  Learned District Commission rightly opined that there was no rebuttal to the bills of repair.  Learned District Commission also held that the surveyor’s report is not last and final word, it may be the basis for settlement of claim and the same is neither binding upon insurer nor that of the insured, when the claim was duly supported by original vouchers, bill and receipts.  In the present case, the complainant has placed on record bills Ex.C-1 and C-3, which shows that the complainant had spent more than Rs.60,000/- and OP could not rebut  the bills in question, especially when the vehicle was repaired by the authorized dealer and why this repairer issue fake bills.   The case law cited by the counsel for the appellant is not relevant as the facts and circumstance of the case is different from the present case.  Learned District Commission rightly allowed the claim of the complainant. The complainant is entitled for the remaining balance amount.

9.      Resultantly, the contentions raised on behalf of the present appellant stands rejected as rendered no assistance and found to be untenable and the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is well reasoned and accordingly stands maintained for all intents and purposes.  Hence, appeal stands dismissed on merits.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent/complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

07th  July, 2022       Suresh Chander Kaushik                        S. P. Sood                                                    Member                                                         Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)