AVADH BEHARI LAL vs National Insurance Company Ltd.

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 4.12.1995 passed by District Consumer Forum, Shahjahanpur in Complaint Case No. 262/1994.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant got his tractor No. UP 27-0910 insured with the opposite party, National Insurance Company, for a sum of Rs. 3,59,000/-. THE premium was paid accordingly. On 19th July, 1993 the tractor met with an accident with another tractor for which an FIR was lodged and Insurance Company was also informed. A claim was also put forward before the Insurance Company. After informing the Insurance Company, the complainant got the tractor repaired on which he spent a sum of Rs. 16,000/-. THE Insurance Company has refused to pay this amount inspite of the fact that the entire papers were given to the Insurance Company before 16.12.1993. THE Insurance Company wants to pay Rs. 1,600/- only. Hence the complainant filed the complaint claiming a sum of Rs. 16,023/- as cost of the repairs, Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,400/- as expenses alongwith 18% per annum interest. The opposite party filed written statement alleging therein that only a sum of Rs. 1,600/- is liable to be paid by the Insurance Company to the complainant. According to the Insurance Company, they are not liable to pay for damages to lamps, tyres, mudguard, side bumper, paint work etc. The vehicle was got inspected on 18.8.1993 and finally survey was got done on 4th September, 1993. It is also alleged that the Surveyor reported that the cost of the repairs to the tractor was worth Rs. 4,710/- out of which a sum of Rs. 1,500/- has to be deducted and at the most a. sum of Rs. 3,210/- is payable to the complainant. It has further been alleged by the Insurance Company that the salvages and the receipts of the repairs were demanded so that the amount be paid. A receipt of Rs. 464.10 was not supplied to the Insurance Company by the complainant. It was alleged that as the tractor was meant for agricultural matters. Only the driver could have driven this vehicle but as some passengers were sitting in and hence 25% deduction is to be made and only a sum of Rs. 3,271/- is to be paid for which the claim has already been passed.

The learned District Forum after considering the respective cases of the parties and perusing the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the complainant is not entitled to anything more than the amount agreed to by the Insurance Company. With this finding the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum, the complainant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that a sum of Rs. 16,000/- should have been decreed by the learned District Forum alongwith interest. According to learned Counsel the amount assessed by the Insurance Company does not represent the actual amount spent by the complainant on the repairs of the vehicle.

FROM the perusal of the judgment it would be clear that the complainant has filed receipts of repairs worth Rs. 13,233/-. It is correct that the photocopies of these receipts have been filed by the complainant but the original receipts have not been filed. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed and the amount was taken not to have been spent by the complainant. It is a common knowledge that when a claim is made, all the original documents which represent the amount of the repairs etc. are submitted to the Insurance Company. If they have not been submitted alongwith the claim, then they are subsequently demanded by the Insurance Company and only thereafter the claim is settled. It was the duty of the District Forum to have asked the Insurance Company to produce those original receipts. It has nowhere been said in the judgment that the Insurance Company has informed the complainant that the receipts were not submitted to it. It was the duty of the Insurance Company to have submitted all the original receipts to the District Forum in order that the District Forum could have reached a conclusion on the amount spent on repairs. This way we find that the learned District Forum had committed an error in dismissing the complaint and not awarding even a sum of Rs. 13,233/- as repairing charges for which photocopies were filed. There is also nothing on record to suggest that the District Forum has ever demanded the original receipts from the complainant. Thus we find that the judgment delivered by the District Forum deserves to be set aside and the appeal is required to be allowed. Ultimately we come to the conclusion that the appellant/complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 13,233/- as cost of the repairs and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation on account of the harassment caused by the Insurance Company in not settling the claim according to the receipts submitted by the complainant. The complainant is also entitled to a cost of Rs. 2,000/- of the District Forum. The complainant is also entitled to cost of Rs. 2,000/- of this Commission. The Insurance Company shall pay to the complainant 18% per annum interest on amount of.Rs-13,233/- with effect from 1.4.1994 till the date of payment. ORDER

THE appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the learned Forum is set aside. THE complaint is decreed for a sum of Rs. 13,233/- alongwith 18% per annum interest from 1.4.1994 till the date of payment alongwith compensation of Rs. 1,000/- on account of harassment. Complainant is also entitled for cost of Rs. 2,000/- in District Forum and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of proceedings in this Commission. Let compliance of this order be made within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal allowed with costs.