C.SIVANAND vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

THE case of the complainant is that he purchased a Tata Mobile 207 motor vehicle from the opposite party No. 3 by paying a sum of Rs. 2,52,348/-. He has taken a loan of Rs. 1,90,000/- from M/s. Nagarjuna Finance Limited, Hyderabad. He has also taken an insurance policy bearing No. 050302/31/21/5493/91 dated 5.2.1992 from the opposite party No. 1. He has taken temporary registration No. T/RAP - 16/T 2578.

THE vehicle met with an accident on the night of 12/13.2.1992. F.I.R. was registered before Kukatpalli Police Station and later Panchanama was also recorded. On 13.2.1992 a Surveyor was sent by the opposite party No. 2 who surveyed the accident spot and the vehicle was brought to the workshop of the opposite party No. 3 on the advice of the Surveyor. In the month of March, 1992 one Mr. K. Sivakumar was appointed to assess the loss and submit a report. Till April, 1992 the motor vehicle was in the workshop of the opposite party No. 3 and in May, 1992 as per the directions of the Surveyor the vehicle was entrusted to a private workshop namely M/s. Marvel Motors for carrying out tinkering and painting. After a number of visits by the complainant M/s. Marvel Motors have done tinkering job and delivered the vehicle to the opposite party No. 3 in the last week of August, 1992. After the vehicle was brought to the opposite party No. 3 the complainant was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 9,000/- for the work done by M/s. Marvel Motors. THE complainant submits that the second opposite party wrote a letter to him on 28.10.1992 to furnish the details of the repairs done by the opposite party No. 3. THE complainant has incurred a sum of Rs. 77,456/- by paying the said amount to the opposite party No. 3 at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle on 8.1.1993. However to his surprise the claim amount was reduced to Rs. 50,000/- from Rs. 77,456/- as approved by the Surveyor and a cheque for Rs. 50,000/- was given on 22.2.1993 and the signature of the complainant''s agent was obtained forcibly by the opposite party No. 3. THErefore, he claims the balance of Rs. 27,456/- with interest in addition to damages of Rs. 1,65,000/- and also Rs. 1,00,800/- towards loss of interest. In the counter filed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 while admitting the purchase of the vehicle and taking out insurance policy as well as appointment of Surveyor Mr. N. Siva Kumar etc., it is stated that Mr. Siva Kumar gave a report on 24.5.1992 assessing the damage of the vehicle at Rs. 53,793.96 ps. and that the salvage value was assessed at Rs. 2,500/-. Thus a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was arrived at as net liability for payment by the Insurance Company to the complainant and that a cheque was issued on 22.2.1993 in favour of Nagarjuna Finance Limited on account of Sri C. Sivanand the complainant herein. The said cheque was received in full and final settlement of the liability of the opposite party Insurance Company and, therefore, there is no deficiency in service.

The complainant filed Exs. A-1 to A-29 and the opposite parties filed Exs. B-1 to B-6. No oral evidence is adduced on behalf of the complainant so is the case with the opposite parties.

THE point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what relief ? The complainant has purchased a motor vehicle for a sum of Rs. 2,52,348/-. He has also taken an insurance policy on 5.2.1992 for the said amount by paying a premium of Rs. 4,035/-. While so it met with an accident on the night of 12/13.2.1992. A Surveyor was appointed on 14.2.1992 to visit the accident site and to file a report. One Siva Kumar was appointed as a Surveyor in March, 1992 to assess the damage. He accordingly submitted his report dated 24.5.1992. He fixed the net liability at Rs. 53,793.96 ps. However it is stated therein that the Surveyor Sivakumar estimated the repairs at Rs. 1,07,168.50 ps. The complainant filed his claim for Rs. 77,456/-. Under Ex. B-4 -B. Seshagiri Rao & Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd., wrote a letter dated 5.2.1993 stating that item No. 4 is Rs. 2,614/- and not Rs. 213/- which was mistakenly mentioned. Under Ex. A-1 the complainant demanded the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 2,93,256/- wherein he has stated that he was taken delivery of the vehicle after repairs only on 8.1.1993 by incurring an expenditure of Rs. 77,456/-. He also took objection for paying a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to his vehicle in full and final settlement of the claim. Under Ex. A-8 letter dated 11.11.1992 he informed the second opposite party that tinkering work is completed and painting work is partly completed. It is further stated that upholstery work and mechanical and electrical work is partly completed. He promised to surrender cash bills of repairs and replacements as well as salvage material. The work is pending with the third opposite party and as soon as it is completed he will comply with formalities. No where it is stated that there was any undue delay or that he is entitled to any compensation on that score. He again wrote a letter dated 7.12.992 marked Ex. A-9 to the third opposite party to complete the work as he has to produce the bills for repairs before the opposite parties 1 and 2 for claiming insurance amount. Under Ex. A-12 he merely produced the bills for Rs. 77,456/- and asked the opposite parties 1 and 2 to send a cheque for Rs. 77,456/- in favour of his financier M/s. Nagarjuna Finance Ltd. Of course it does not contain any date. But in the context it must be after he wrote a letter Ex. A-9. Here also he does not mention about any claim for damages for the delay. The third opposite party submitted a supplementary estimate under Ex. A-15 on 2.12.1992. On 5.1.1993 under Ex. A-16 M/s. Marvel Motors submitted a detailed bill for Rs. 11,000/- for tinkering, welding etc. Under Ex. A-17 dated 6.1.1993 the third opposite party submitted another bill for Rs. 14,465/-. This documentary evidence shows that till January, 1993 the complainant never raised his little finger indicating his grievance or claim for damages. Even in January, 1993 he expressed his desire that a sum of Rs. 77,456/- should be paid to his financier and the opposite parties 1 and 2 have paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- about five weeks thereafter. Therefore, we do not find that there is any delay in issuing the cheque by the opposite parties 1 and 2. The present claim for Rs. 2,93,256/- is, therefore, unsustainable in view of the claim under Ex. A-12 for a sum of Rs. 77,456/-.

THE next question is whether the opposite parties 1 and 2 are justified to reduce the claim of the complainant from Rs. 77,456/- to Rs. 50,000/-. The report of the Surveyor under Ex. B-2 shows that he estimated the damages at Rs. 53,793/-. After deducting salvage value of Rs. 2,500/- a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid to the financier of the complainant in full and final settlement of the claim. The learned Counsel for the complainant submits that the settlement with the financier without reference to the complainant is not binding on him, inasmuch as the financier cannot conclude any settlement in full satisfaction to the detriment of the complainant. In this case the vehicle stands in the name of the financier. Therefore, he is entitled to claim the insurance amount. Further the complainant also has issued a letter under Ex. A-12 asking the opposite party No. 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 77,456/- to his financier. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it is not open to the complainant to turn round and say that his financier is not entitled to receive the amount in full and final settlement of the claim.

NOW the question is whether the opposite parties are justified in reducing the compensation from Rs. 77,456/- to Rs. 50,000/-. As already seen the report of the Surveyor is the basis on which the assessment of damages has been arrived at. There is no material placed by the complainant questioning the said report. He has not examined himself nor examined any of the Surveyors. In the absence of any evidence adduced by the complainant it is not possible to hold that the Surveyor''s report is either defective or the assessment made by him is perfunctory. In fact the Surveyor has filed his calculation sheet which is marked as Ex. B-5 giving the details as to how he arrived at the said figure. As already stated there is no material filed by the complainant disputing those figures. For these reasons the complainant failed to establish that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances without costs. Complaint dismissed.