AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE complainant who is respondent herein, insured his Tata Indica car for the period from 21.05.2004 to 20.05.2005. THE car met with an accident on 21.01.2005 about which the information was sent to the Petitioner/OP. A surveyor came to be appointed who assessed the loss at Rs.45,384.25 paisa and cost of parts and labour was indicated at Rs.69,553/-. However, the OP Insurance Co. did not pay even Rs.45,384.25 paisa despite repeated requests and demands by the complainant. According to the complainant, he also deposited the salvage as demanded by the OP Insurance Co. with its collection centre of M/s Shakti & Co., Joshi Road, Karol Bagh on 15.04.2005. Legal notice sent by the complainant to the OP Co. remained unreplied and hence a complaint was lodged with the District Forum praying for direction to the OP to pay Rs.61,984.25 paisa with interest @ 18% p.a along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1100/-. THE District Forum accepted the complaint by directing the OP to pay Rs.45,384/- towards the claim along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, an appeal was filed by the OP Insurance Co. before the State Commission challenging the same but the appeal was dismissed by the State Commission in limine. While upholding the order of the District Forum, the State Commission observed thus:- "4. THE defence being raised by the appellant does not inspire confidence. Had the letter of intimation or the letter of appointment of surveyor asking the respondent to deposit the salvage and also the report of the surveyor would have been fabricated, the loss assessed by the surveyor would not have been less than the actual estimate prepared by the mechanic of the respondent. As per actual estimate, cost of repair is Rs.69,553/- whereas the surveyor allegedly appointed by the appellant assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.45,384.25p. We do not find any ground to differ with the finding of facts returned by the District Forum in this regard and therefore, maintain the impugned order. THEre is no merit in the appeal and is dismissed in limine."
WE agree with the concurrent orders of Fora below based on finding of facts. During the course of hearing before us, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the surveyor who submitted his report is on the panel of the petitioner Co. It is also admitted that a report was received from him. However, since the report of the surveyor was not signed and the petitioner Co. denies his appointment by the petitioner Co., his report was not accepted. However, even while disputing the legitimacy of the surveyor"s report, the petitioner Co. did not file any affidavit denying his appointment by the petitioner Co. or the affidavit of the surveyor in support of its contentions. In the circumstances, the District Forum rightly rejected the contentions of the OP Insurance Co. while holding the OP Co. deficient in rendering services to the complainant and accepting the complaint in terms of its order in question which was duly upheld by the State Commission. WE do not find any reason to interfere with the same and hence the revision petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.