KAMLESH HANDA vs ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. Limited

THE present appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') against order dated 6.1.1999, passed by District Forum-I (Tis Hazari), Delhi in Complaint Case No. 291/1995 - entitled Smt. Kamlesh Handa v. THE Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Vide the impugned order the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint of the appellant Smt. Kamlesh Handa holding that the complainant has failed to make a case of deficiency of service against the respondent. Aggrieved by the above order, the complainant in the District Forum has filed the present appeal.

THE brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this appeal are as follows : THE appellant got her vehicle (Truck No.W DIG 7559) insured with the respondent company vide Insurance Policy No. 39/93/1575 on 30.11.1992. THE insurance was valid for one year upto 29.11.1993. According to the appellant the above truck met with an accident on 29.5.1993 and was completely damaged. THE appellant without any loss of time submitted her claim to the respondemt Insurance Company. According to the appellant she suffered a loss of Rs. 1,03,000/- on account of the said accident. THE appellant had submitted bills, cash memos for Rs. 63,005/-, which she had received from the mechanics, body builder, painter and for charges of various parts. It was also alleged by the appellant that she had to pay salary to the Driver and Cleaner, who were sitting idle for such a long time and also suffered damages for the loss of business and earnings to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- as the vehicle was not fit to be used on the road. THE appellant also claimed miscellaneous expenditure of Rs. 4,000/- which she had to incur for visiting site of the accident and to the places where the vehicle was being repaired. It was also stated that the delay in the repair of the vehicle was on account of the delay on the part of the respondent in settling her claim. However, the respondent vide a letter dated 1.11.1994 approved the claim of the appellant to the extent of Rs. 11,337/- only and the appellant was asked to submit a discharge voucher duly filled in and signed with revenue stamp, so that the respondent company may be able to settle the claim to its full and final settlement. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent has fixed this amount unilaterally without any justification and the act of the respondent Company was fully illegal and uncalled for and that the amount offered by the respondent Company is not even a fraction of the legal and legitimate claim. Accordingly the appellant refused to accept the offer of the respondent and did not receive the amount of Rs. 11,337/- offered by the respondent. Instead she has filed the present appeal challenging the order of the District Forum dated 6.1.999. The respondent has asserted before the District Forum that the Insurance Company had appointed Mr. S.L. Jindal as Surveyor to assess the claim of the appellant and the Surveyor assessed the damages to the tune of Rs. 12,694.90p. As per Survey Report the estimate submitted by the appellant were highly exaggerated and were without any basis. The respondent had also asserted that the claim of the appellant was processed on merit and her claim for Rs. 11,337/- was based on the report of the Surveyor and she was asked to deposit the salvage. But inspite of two letters sent by the respondent to the appellant she neither deposited the salvage nor sent the discharge voucher. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and the complaint has been rightly dismissed by the learned District Forum.

We have heard both the parties and have also carefully considered the documents on record. The claim of the appellant before the District Forum was for Rs. 1,03,000/-. We entirely agree with the observation and finding of the learned District Forum that the appellant is only entitled to the amount spent by her on the repair of the truck and not for the pay and salary of the driver or for losses suffered by her when the truck remained out of use. The appellant has not produced any evidence before the District Forum about the loss which were indirectly suffered by her on account of deficiency on the part of the respondent. The vehicle was insured when the accident took place and the truck was damaged. Hence the respondent Insurance Company is liable to pay to the appellant the amount spent by her on repair of the truck. The appellant had filed bills to the tune of Rs. 63,005/-. Copies of the bills have also been filed before this Commission. However, the respondent was of the view that bills deposited by the appellant were not genuine. The respondent has not seriously challenged the genuineness of the bills and has not filed any evidence to prove that the bills submitted by the appellant were not genuine. On the other hand the respondent blindly relied on the report of the Surveyor and reduced the amount of the claim of the appellant to Rs. 11,337/- which appears to be an arbitrary Act. No inquiry was conducted by the respondent to verify the genuineness of the bills submitted by the appellant. The learned District Forum has also not given any finding on this issue and has not given any reason for considering the bills submitted by the appellant as not being genuine. The observation in this connection of the District Forum is as follows : "So far as the contention of the complainant that she spent Rs. 63,005/- on repair is concerned, respondent is of the view that bills deposited by the complainant are not genuine. Complainant has not pointed out any defect in the report of the Surveyor or in the amount of compensation suggested by him."

WITH the above observations the learned District Forum without giving any finding regarding the genuineness of the bills has rejected the complaint of the appellant. In our view, the learned District Forum has erred in rejecting the bills filed by the appellant before the District Forum without any genuine reason. Simply because the respondent considered them as not genuine it cannot be a ground for rejection of the same without any substantive evidence on this point. Hence the observation of the learned District Forum that the appelalnt has failed to make out any case of deficiency cannot be sustained. The learned District Forum has erred in not awarding the amount of repairs spent by the appellant and observing that the appellant should have accepted the offer of the respondent and should have filed a civil suit for the remaining amount. The Consumer Forums have been established to give relief to the consumers in case of deficiency and to give speedy relief to the consumer. If for every dispute the consumer has to turn to the Civil Court then the very purpose of the Act would stand defeated. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors. v. Sri Nath Chaturvedi & Ors. reported as III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC)=IV (2002) SLT 714=1986-2002 Consumer 6792 (NS) has held that even for deciding complicated question of law and fact exhaustive procedure in conformity with the natural justice has been provided in the Act, and on ground of complicated question of fact and law involved in the case the consumer should not be relegated to approach the Civil Court to get them decided. In the instant case the claim of the appellant was decided simply on the basis of the report of the Surveyor and no consideration was given to the bills of repairs submitted by the appellant to the respondent. Hence we are of the view that the respondent is liable for deficiency in service for deciding the claim of the appellant arbitrarily without giving proper consideration to the bills submitted by her. Hence the appeal is to be allowed partly.

THE appeal is partly allowed and the order dated 6.1.1999 passed by the District Forum-I is hereby set aside. Finding the respondent liable for deficiency in service, the respondent is directed to pay to the appellant Rs. 63,065/- (Rs. sixty three thousand and sixty-five only) along with 9% interest from the date of the claim till payment. This order be complied with within 60 days failing which the appellant would be at liberty to move the District Forum for compliance of the order under Section 25/27 of the Act, as she may be advised. No order as to costs. THE appeal is disposed of in above terms. Appeal disposed of.