Ekasila Chemicals Ltd. vs Branch Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.6.2012 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 369/2011 - Ekasila Chemicals Ltd. Vs. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint partly was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner ''s vehicle AP 10 AK 1573 was insured with OP/respondent for a period of one year from 7.10.2007 to 6.10.2008. On 5.1.2008, vehicle met with an accident and OP was given intimation. OP appointed surveyor. Complainant paid Rs.7,51,378/ - towards repair of the car and submitted claim and OP sent cheque of Rs.1,00,000/ - along with discharge voucher. Complainant accepted cheque under protest and sent intimation to OP. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that payment was made as per surveyor ''s assessment. It was further submitted that under protest letter dated 18.8.2009 was not received by OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint partly and directed OP to pay Rs.20,850/ - with 8% p.a. interest and further awarded Rs.2,000/ - as costs. Appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of proof of making huge payment for repair, learned District Forum committed error in allowing only Rs.20,850/ - and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal, hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence, revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of record reveals that complainant submitted estimate of Rs.7,13,558/ -, but surveyor assessed loss of Rs.1,08,850/ -. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that complainant proved receipts of payment received by Mahavir Auto for Rs.7,36,378/ -; even then, learned District Forum committed error in observing that complainant has not filed statement of accounts showing encashment of cheques and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal. Perusal of receipts reveals that receipt of Rs.4,50,000/ - dated 12.2.2008 does not contain any vehicle number and in such circumstances, it cannot be inferred that this advance payment was made towards repair of insured vehicle. No doubt, receipt dated 18.2.2008 for Rs.2,86,378/ - contains vehicle number, but learned District forum rightly observed that to prove this payment, petitioner should have filed statement of account to prove that cheques have been encashed. Learned State Commission further observed that repairer of the insured accepted assessment made by the surveyor and petitioner could not impeach credibility of surveyors report. In such circumstances, order passed by learned District Forum allowing Rs.20,580/ - was upheld by learned State Commission. Looking to the concurrent finding of fact, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.