AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Counsel for the parties present. Arguments heard. Sh. Arun Kumar B., the complainant is the owner of Scorpio vehicle. It was insured with the National Insurance Company. The vehicle met with an accident on 03.04.2012. The authorized workshop of the Opposite Party estimated the loss at Rs.8,17,250/-. It is, however, interesting to note that the complainant had claimed Rs.4,00,000/- only in the claim form dated 04.05.2012. The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.2, 86,345/-.
The District Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant relying upon the report of the Local Commissioner, Ex-C-2, who is a Motor Vehicle Inspector. He assessed the loss at Rs.5,68,350/- and the District Forum granted the claim in the sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as per the policy.
The order of the District Forum, on its face, is illegal. It is difficult to understand how did it give more amount than the amount claimed by the petitioner/complainant, in his claim form.
The matter went in appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission modified the order and ordered that the complainant is entitled to the amount assessed by the surveyor.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the report filed by the Local Commissioner, in the sum of Rs.5,68,350/- should be accepted and the order should be passed on his report.
The arguments urged by the counsel for the petitioner lack conviction. It is difficult to fathom, how can we grant him the amount more than claimed by him in the claim form. The complainant has not approached the Court with clean hands. The flip-flops made by the complainant do not go to help the legal proceedings. The authorized workshop of the OP took the divergent views. No reliance can be placed upon them. The Local Commissioner should have seen the claim form, first of all. His report is therefore, not reliable.
Consequently, we are left to the report of the Surveyor. His report appears to be correct. No argument has been advanced to show that he is an interested witness or his report is biased.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the OP filed the report after several months. The mere delay in filing the report does not cast any cloud over his report. It is to be noted that he inspected the vehicle immediately. It is further stated that he did not dismantle the vehicle. It is difficult to fathom, what is the need of dismantling the vehicle. The loss can be assessed after watching it at the accidental place. The report of the surveyor carries infinite value. This was so held in the case of "Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. & Ors." (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 19 and in "D.N. Badoni Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd." I (2012) C.P.J. 272 (NC).
In view of all these circumstances, we place reliance on the report of the surveyor, however, the order passed by the State Commission is modified. The complainant will get Rs.2,85,346/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of accident i.e. on 03.04.2012, till its realization. The Revision Petition stands disposed of.