Goodrich Carbohydrates Ltd. vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.8.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 34/2012 - New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Goodrich Carbohydrates Ltd. by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum allowing complaint was modified.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant/Petitioner ''s truck HR 45A 4377 was insured by OP/respondent for a period of one year commencing from 24.6.2010 to 23.6.2010. Vehicle met with an accident on 9.9.2010 and was badly damaged. OP appointed surveyor who permitted M/s. Metro Motors to replace Assembly Cabin Shell, as the same was beyond repair. It was further alleged that surveyor demanded money from the insured to recommend the final bill prepared by M/s. Metro Motors, but as complainant did not oblige, surveyor allowed Assembly Cabin Shell to be repaired and assessed loss only at Rs.74,881/ - against the bill of Rs.2,53,020/ -. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint, denied scandalous allegations against the surveyor and submitted that surveyor rightly assessed loss and further denied that he allowed replacement of Assembly Cabin Shell and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.1,78,139/ - with interest @ 9% p.a. OP filed appeal and learned State Commission vide impugned order partly allowed appeal and allowed complaint to the extent of Rs.74,881/ - against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

HEARD learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that delay occurred in filing revision petition as authorized signatory Girish Chawla who was in touch with Counsel before the State Commission suddenly died due to heart attack on 18.12.2011 and Counsel for the petitioner apprised about decision in July, 2013 and after that this revision petition was filed on 6.9.2013. Petitioner has also placed on record copy of appointment of Girish Chawla and his death certificate. It appears that as concerned signatory Girish Chawla suddenly died due to heart attack, Counsel for thepetitionerappearing before State Commission did not apprise to the petitioner about fate of appeal. As Counsel for the petitioner apprised to petitioner only in July, 2013 about decision in the case on 17.8.2012, revision petition could not be filed in time. Apparently, there is delay of 276 days in filing revision petition, but application for condonation of delay does not depict period of delay to be condoned. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay. Hence, delay in filing revision petition stands condoned.

AS far merits of the case, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that by approval of surveyor Assembly Cabin Shell was replaced and learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint, but learned State Commission committed error in modifying claim; 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.

THERE is dispute only regarding replacement or repair of Assembly Cabin Shell. Surveyor assessed claim on the basis of repair of Assembly Cabin Shell, but complainant is claiming compensation inclusive of replacement of Assembly Cabin Shell. Surveyor vide letter dated 23.10.2010 asked M/s. Metro Motors Pvt. Ltd. under what circumstances Assembly Cabin Shell was replaced. In reply to this letter M/s. Metro Motors Pvt. Ltd. vide letter dated 27.10.2010 intimated to the surveyor that Assembly Cabin Shell was replaced with surveyor as well as complainant ''s approval as it was partly damaged and was impossible to bring in original shape as demanded by the party. Perusal of this reply reveals that Assembly Cabin Shell was replaced at the insistence of complaint, but not on the recommendation of surveyor as no letter has been placed on record by the complainant by which it can be inferred that surveyor ever agreed for replacement of Assembly Cabin Shell. SurveyorShriR.S. Kohli filed affidavit before District Forum in which he has specifically mentioned that he did not permit replacement of Assembly Cabin Shell. Complainant neither crossed this witness on this point that he agreed for replacement nor filed affidavit of M/s. Metro Motors Pvt. Ltd. and in such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that surveyor agreed for replacement of Assembly Cabin Shell.

LEARNED State Commission specifically observed in the impugned order that perusal of photographs of the vehicle in question show that damage is not to the extent that Assembly Cabin Shell needs replacement and photographs clearly indicate that Assembly Cabin Shellisrepairable and on the basis of this observation State Commission reduced claim which is apparently proper.

I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdiction error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

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