ALEYAMMA VERGHESE vs CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

THIS is a complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complain ant is one Mrs. Aleyamma Verghese, w/o Shri Babu Verghese. The petitioner purchased a vehicle bearing registration No. BR 16 D 6107 (A.C). TATA SIERA on 11.11.1993 and the same was insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd., at its Branch Office at 9, Kalimati Road, Sakchi, Jamshedpur for a period of one year from 9.11.1994 under a comprehensive insurance policy. The vehicle unfortunately met an accident on 13.8.1995 near Ormajhi, District Ranchi. A claim was submitted on 16.8.1995 before the Insurance Company in the aforesaid Branch Office. The petitioner was instructed to send the vehicle to M/s. Tewari Bechar & Co. (opposite party No. 3) for necessary repair. M/s. Tewari Bechar & Co. had submitted an estimate of Rs. 2,94,000.18 on 19.8.1995 with a note that the final estimate would be submitted only after dismantle of the vehicle. The respondent No. 4, Ajit Kumar Sharma, a Surveyor had inspected the vehicle on 30.8.1995 and 4.9.1995 and advised to obtain a new body and shell and chassis for repair of the vehicle. On 24.1.1996 a supplementary estimate in continuation of the previous one was submitted by the Surveyor for Rs. 10,131.70 P. only. THIS bill was sent to the opposite party No. 1 for examination and confirmation.

IN the meantime Tewari Bechar and Co. Ltd. informed the complainant that following a revision of the spare parts by M/s. Telco Ltd., they had also revised the amount of estimate and their final bill was on the basis of such revised price of the spare parts. The opposite party No. 1 also requested the complainant to obtain a "no objection" certificate from the financier Bank. Accordingly a "no objection" certificate was issued by the Federal Bank in favour of the INsurance Company. The opposite party No. 2 by his letter dated 10.5.1996 offered payment of an amount of Rs. 1,75,136/ only, which was not acceptable to the complainant. Being unsuccessful to realise the amount the complainant ultimately sent a Lawyer''s notice demanding the amount as finally estimated. This having not been paid the present case has been filed, demanding a total of Rs. 7,36,698/ as per details given in the petition of complaint.

The opposite party Nos. 1, 2 & 3 appeared separately to contest the case. Opposite parties 1 and 2 raised a preliminary point of objection that the case was not maintainable before this Commission on two grounds namely that the National Insurance Company was not a party as such and that the Commission lacked territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. The matter was heard at length on this preliminary point and by an order dated 9.1.1997 the Commission held both the points in favour of the petitioner and heard the matter on merits. No formal written objection was filed by opposite parties 1 and 2 but the matter was heard on contest and written arguments were filed by them. The opposite party 3 Tewari Bechar and Co. Ltd. also appeared and filed written objection, they admitted the repairing of the car and the subsequent escalation of the charge and repair on account of the enhancement of the price of the spare parts. They, however, pointed out certain misstatements in the petition of com plaint.

THE facts that the car was covered by an insurance policy and that it met an accident are admitted. It is also admitted that after the report of the accident a Surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company and he submitted a report. THE amount proposed in the report was, how ever, not acceptable to the petitioner and as such the matter was brought for adjudication before the Commission. THE petitioner has submitted a number of documents including certain correspondence and the estimates filed by the Bechar & Company Ltd., both preliminary and final. From the documents it appears that the Company is not opposed to the idea of paying the insurance money but that there is a discrepancy about the money to be paid and the value of the spare parts. THE documents filed by the petitioner prima facie proved the value demanded by the Tewari Bechar and Co. Ltd. and there is no counter evidence on the part of the Insurance Company that the estimates produced by the order party are exaggerated or that the value mentioned therein was actually not paid. As no cogent reason has been shown by the opposite parties why the insurance claim should not exceed the amount proposed by the Surveyor and that the charges for repair of the vehicle were actually less than what has been claimed, we are inclined to accept the version of the petitioner and hold that the claim of repair and the repairing charges put forth by the petitioner should be accepted subject, however, to the limit of insurance coverage. The insurance coverage is claimed to be Rs. 3,98,000/-, so the petitioner is entitled to recover from opposite parties 1 and 2 an amount of Rs. 3,98,000/- (three lakhs ninety eight thousand) as the repairing charge and as the amount has not been paid within time it will carry an interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of filing of this case before the Commission until payment. The petitioner shall also be entitled to a damage of Rs.15,000/- for loss suffered by her in the absence of the vehicle. The petitioner is also entitled to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- against the opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 for this proceeding. Complaint allowed with costs.