KAUR SINGH vs NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

THIS revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant against the impugned order dated 2.12.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 1487 of 2007 - National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kaur Singh by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing compensation was modified and reduced. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Petitioner''s vehicle Tata Sumo No. HR -20G/9953 insured by OP/Respondent was damaged in an accident on 8.7.2003 during the subsistence of Insurance Policy. Complainant informed to the Insurance Company and Insurance Company appointed Loss Assessors Surveyors, who conducted spot survey and thereafter, another Surveyor assessed loss to the tune of Rs. 4,800/ -. OP sent cheque of Rs. 4,800/ - to the complainant, but the same was received back, as the Complainant was not available at his address. Complainant had spent Rs. 80,000/ - on the repairs of his vehicle, whereas OP was willing to pay only Rs. 4,800/ -. Complainant alleging deficiency on the part of OP, filed complaint. OP resisted complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay a sum of Rs. 70,000/ -. Appeal filed by OP was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and learned State Commission modified order of District Forum and directed OP/Respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 4,800/ - to the Complainant along with 6% p.a. interest against which, this revision petition has been filed.

HEARD learned Counsel for the parties at admission stage and perused record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned District Forum rightly allowed claim after considering affidavits and bills and learned State Commission has committed error in modifying amount of compensation; hence, revision petition be allowed and order of State Commission be set aside and the order of District Forum be restored. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent submitted that order of learned State Commission is in accordance with law based on Surveyor''s report, which does not call for any interference; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of record reveals that after intimation of accident on the same day, OP appointed Shri Prem Rattan Gupta & Company, Surveyors and Loss Assessors and Surveyors carried out spot inspection and inspected vehicle meticulously and observed minor damage in the vehicle, who took many photographs of the vehicle from different angles. Another Surveyor Shri Rajeev Gupta, Surveyor and Loss Assessor assessed loss to the vehicle by a detailed report based on spot inspection of earlier surveyor and opined that total loss to the vehicle was to the tune of Rs. 6,118/ - including labour and material charges and after deducing Rs. 1,000/ - on the count of excess clause, Insurance Company''s liability was determined to the tune of Rs. 5,118/ -. It was further observed that insurer is to collect the salvage or Rs. 318/ -. It appears that OP after considering Surveyors report sent a cheque of Rs. 4800/ - to the complainant, which was not received by him.

NO doubt, the petitioner has placed affidavit in support of vouchers, but the question is whether replacement of all those parts and labour charges for replacing those parts was necessitated due to accident. Perusal of record reveals that on account of minor damage expenses incurred in repair and replacement of number of parts was not necessitated. Learned State Commission observed as under: We have perused the photographs of the accidental vehicle and noticed that except the bonnet of the vehicle, it did not suffer any damage. The bills which have been furnished by the complainant relates to the damages which were not attributed to the history of the accident namely Head Lamps, Radiator etc. Therefore, the bills which have been produced by the complainant do not prove the actual damage caused to the vehicle.

It is well settled principle of law that the surveyor report is an authenticated document and the same cannot be ignored without any cogent evidence contrary to it. In the instant case, the complainant has failed to furnish any cogent and convincing evidence against the report of the surveyor. The complainant managed to secure the exaggerated bills than that of the loss assessed by the surveyor.

Reference is made to case law cited as Pradeep Kumar Sharma versus National Insurance Company, : III (2008) CPJ 158 (NC), wherein the Hon''ble National Commission has held that "Surveyor Report is an important document and cannot be washed aside without any compelling evidence to the contrary.

In Bhawana Kumar versus General Manager Varun Webres Ltd. & Anr., : 2008 (4) CPR 82 (NC), the Hon''ble National Commission has observed that the surveyors are appointed by the Insurance Company and the reports are to be given due importance and that one should have sufficient grounds not to agree with the assessment made by them.

Under the facts and circumstances of the case, District Consumer Forum fell in error by issuing the directions to the appellant -opposite party to pay to the complainant more than the surveyor report. We have no reason to disbelieve the report of the surveyor.

Learned State Commission has not committed any error in passing impugned judgment on the basis of survey report, which is an important document and cannot be brushed aside, particularly, when it is based on immediate spot survey. We do not find any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, which calls for any interference 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.