Jagdish Rai vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

THE unsuccessful complainant appeals against the order of the District Forum, Karnal dismissing the complaint preferred by him.

THE appellant is the registered owner of truck No. HNN-3941. It was comprehensively insured with the respondent-Company and during the currency of the insurance cover the same met with an accident. THE stand taken was that damage to the tune of Rs. 58,274/- occurred to the truck with regard to which the claim was filed with the insurers. However, they approved a somewhat paltry amount of Rs. 8,942/- only. Aggrieved thereby the appellants approached the District Forum. In resolutely contesting the complaint the respondent-Insurance Company fairly admitted the factum of having issued the insurance policy. It was however, pointed out that on intimation being given a surveyor was immediately appointed who provisionally assessed the loss at the sum of Rs. 24,963/-. However, on a fuller consideration of the matter, it was discovered that the said surveyor had colluded with the complainant and consequently it was directed that the matter be fully and closely investigatged by the Engineer of the Regional Office of the insurers. The latter finally assessed the damage to the tune of Rs. 8,942/-. The said amount was promptly paid to the insured in full and final settlement of his claim and a discharge certificate, therefor, was executed by the bank.

The parties adduced documentary evidence in support of their respective stands. The District Forum came to the firm conclusion that the scaling down of the claim was not on flimsy or non-existing grounds and consequently there was no deficiency in service. It held that the claim of the insured was duly investigated with full promptness and he was informed of the same and the assessed amount was not only tendered, but accepted in full and final settlement. Any relief was inevitably denied.

MR. Manchanda, the learned Counsel for the appellant despite his persistence could raise no meaningful challenge to the order under appeal. The gravamen of the argument was that either the claim of the appellant should have been accepted in toto or in any case the provisional assessment of the first surveyor should not have been scaled down. We are unable to find any modi-cum of merit in the aforesaid submission. It is not the law that the claim made by the insurer is sacro-sanct or the report of the first surveyor has to be necessarily accepted as final. Herein the firm stand taken by the respondents in para 3 of the written statement itself was that the original surveyor had merely made a provisional assessment and this was also found to be patently the result of a collusion with the claimant. Consequently, the respondent-Company were entitled to a re-appraisal of the matter and got the same done through the authentic source of a well qualified engineer of their Regional Office. It cannot be said that in doing so the respondents were in any way guilty of any plain deficiency in service.

HOWEVER, what calls for further notice is the fact that it was common ground that the truck in question was mortgaged with a bank against a loan taken by the appellant. It would appear that even the insurance was got done by the said bank (to cover its own interest as well) on the basis of the authority letter of the appellant. The bank was in terms a party to the insurance contract. It is common ground that the amount of Rs. 8,942/- was tendered by the respondent-insurer and accepted by the said bank and deposited in the relevant account. A discharge certificate accepting the same in full and final settlement of the claim was also issued by the said bank. Consequently, it is evident that within the consumer jurisdiction no relief can be granted on the score of any deficiency in service. The appellant, if so advised, can raise any contentions issue before the Civil Court (as has been rightly noticed by the District Forum) if he seeks to challenge the assessment reports etc. For the fore-going reasons, we are unable to find any merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed whilst leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.