Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs G.RAJARAMAN

THE complainant had insured his vehicle, a two-wheeler, with the opposite party National Insurance Company. THE vehicle viz., Bajaj 4S Champion motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-33-F-40, was involved in an accident. Immediately, the complainant informed of the same to the Insurance Company and sent the relevant documents. THE Surveyor by name Mr. Gopalakrishnam appointed by the opposite parties surveyed and sent a report. THE vehicle was left with M/s. Moorthy and Moorthy for repairs and they sent a bill for Rs. 21,016/-. But the Surveyor was quite indifferent and behaved improperly towards the complainant. THE complainant was dragged to the office of the opposite parties on account of which the complainant was put to hardship and mental agony. On 25.6.1998, the 1st opposite party called upon the complainant to produce the vehicle for re-inspection. After six weeks, on 5.8.1998, they sent a voucher for Rs. 14,501/-. Since this amount of Rs. 14,501/- fell short of the actual expenses incurred by the complainant, he did not sign the voucher. Thus, the complainant was dragged to the office of the opposite parties and he was treated badly by the opposite parties and, therefore, the complainant prays for a direction to the opposite parties to pay the said sum of Rs. 21,.060/- spent towards the repair charges, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of business and Rs. 25,000/- for deficiency of service and as compensation for hardship and mental agony together with costs.

THE opposite parties opposed the claim stating as follows: THE complainant had insured his vehicle by taking a policy from the 1st opposite party under policy No. 501401/97/6201464 for the period from 5.6.1997 to 4.6.1998. THE vehicle was involved in a road accident on 8.1.1998. An intimation of the accident was sent by the wife of the complainant. THE complainant sent an estimate for the repairs at Rs. 20,510/-. One Mr. Gopalakrishnan, Surveyor, attached to the opposite parties was sent to assess the damage and inspect the vehicle and submitted a report. He assessed the damages at Rs. 13,378.94 p. THE 2nd Surveyor by name Mr. A Shanmuga Sundaram was deputed to assess the repairs and he made a re-inspection on 6.7.1998 and confirmed the first Surveyor''s report. THE opposite parties, after perusing the reports of the Surveyors, fixed the claim at Rs. 14,501/- and sent a voucher therefor. But the claimant did not accept the same. He has been insisting for payment of the entire sum of Rs. 21,016/-. It was explained to him that certain spare parts replaced would be assessed after depreciation and certain spare parts were exempt from payment of compensation under the terms and conditions of the policy. Though the 1st appellant was willing to settle the claim as early as possible, it was only the complainant who was dragging on the matter and refusing to accept the sum of Rs. 14,951/-. THEre was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. THEre was no need or occasion for the opposite parties to drag the complainant or harass him. THE allegations made against the Surveyors are uncharitable. THE complainant is not entitled to the entire amount. THE complainant has not produced any document to show the business loss of Rs. 10,000/- and loss of income. THE complainant is not entitled to Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony or Rs. 20,000/- towards deficiency of service. The lower Forum accepted the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 21,016.97 p. with interest at 18% p.a. from 19.1.1998 and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 500/- towards cost. Hence this appeal.

The Insurance Policy provides for depreciation. The vehicle was purchased by the complainant in the month of June, 1996 and was involved in the accident on 8.1.1998. Thus, the vehicle was more than one year old on the date of the accident. The Insurance Company sent a Surveyor to inspect the vehicle. The said Surveyor inspected the vehicle and has submitted his report. Another Surveyor was also appointed and he also made an inspection and concurred with the earlier Surveyor''s report. The complainant has not examined M/s. Moorthy & Moorthy nor has filed any affidavit from them to show the nature of damages and the repairs made by him. As per the contract between the parties, the Insurer is liable to make good the damages subject to depreciation. The depreciation is as follows : For all rubber, nylon, plastic FRP parts, tyres and battery 50% For all parts made of glass Nil For all other parts Age of motorcycle upto 6 months 5% Between 6 months and 1 year 10% Between 1 year and 2 years 15% xxxx xxxx The policy reads that the Company will indemnify the insured against loss of or damage to the motorcycle and/or its accessories subject to a deduction of depreciation at the rates mentioned above in respect of parts replaced. Therefore, the indemnification is only subject to deduction for depreciation. On a reading of the nature of the damages from the materials produced by the complainant and the inspection report of the Surveyors employed by the opposite parties, it is clear that in computing the amount payable in accordance with the depreciation table, the amount due and payable on the insurance of the vehicle cannot exceed Rs. 14,501/-. The lower Forum has not adverted to this important aspect, viz., depreciation aspect and proceeded as though the repudiation has been unjust. Merely because the complainant has obtained an estimate for Rs. 21,016.97 from M/s. Moorthy & Moorthy, it does not follow that the said receipt reflects the truth. Moreover, it is not the case of the complainant that the said receipt reflects the amount after providing for due depreciation in accordance with the policy. It is no doubt true that the Surveyor has determined the amount of damages at Rs. 13,378.94 p. But the 1st opposite party offered to pay originally a sum of Rs. 14,501/- and later increased it to Rs. 14,951/-. Just because they have done so, it does not mean that there is anything hidden in their offer. It was not a new motorcycle, but it was nearly two years old. The Insurance Company has to proceed only in accordance with the policy conditions. When they are dealing with public money, they have to be careful and cannot simply accept the claim in toto when the contract provides for depreciation. It is not known from where it is drawn by the lower Forum that a copy of the Surveyor''s report ought to have been given to the complainant. Therefore, the very approach and the resultant conclusion of the lower Forum is lopsided. The Insurance Company has offered to pay Rs. 14,501/-. But it is the complainant who has refused to receive the said amount and has been demanding more. If really there was anything bona fide in the case of the complainant he would have accepted the amount under protest and then should have come forward with this claim. There is no reason why he has not done so. What all is stated by the complainant is accepted by the lower Forum as gospel truth and there are no reasons as to why the version of the opposite parties should be discarded so summarily. Thus, there has not been any just or fair approach by the lower Forum.

HOWEVER, the Insurance Company has accepted to make payment of Rs. 14,951/-. Therefore, to that extent we can accept the complaint though, in our opinion, there is no deficiency in service on their part. This story woven by the complainant about his frequently visiting the opposite parties remain a story. It is not known nor explained nor even proved as to how the complainant suffered business loss or loss of income and how he was able to arrive at such a huge sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of business and loss of income. Similarly, his claim of Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony and hardship is fanciful. Therefore, these claims have to be rejected straightaway. In the result, we allow the appeal in part, modifying the order of the lower Forum as follows : (1) The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 14,951/- to the complainant with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization. (2) The other reliefs claimed by the complainant will stand rejected. (3) In the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own costs throughout. Appeal allowed.