Meena Jamwal vs ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 8.8.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 333/2013 Meena Jamwal Vs. The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. and Anr. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner got his car CH -03 -R -5909 insured from OP No.1/Respondent No.1 for a period of one year from 21.07.2011 to 20.07.2012. On 17.11.2011, car met with an accident and suffered damages. OP No. 2/Respondent No. 2 submitted estimate of Rs.48,825/ - and OP No. 1 was intimated. It was further submitted that complainant got her car repaired from OP No. 2 and paid Rs.48,825/ -. It was further submitted that OP No. 1 settled claim for Rs.10,088/ - and surveyor deducted depreciation @ 40% on metal items and 50% on rubber items and did not assess loss of remaining items. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 1 resisted complaint and submitted that as per surveyors assessment of loss, Rs.10,088/ - has been disbursed to the complainant in March, 2012 and no protest was made; hence, prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 2 submitted that he did repairs and received payment in cash from complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by complainant was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

RESPONDENT No. 2 was deleted. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that surveyor did not assess loss properly and State Commission committed error in dismissing appeal on the basis of receiving payment without protest whereas no voucher has been signed by petitioner; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and compensation be awarded. On the other hand leaned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

AS far assessment of loss is concerned, learned State Commission rightly observed as under: "The car, in question, was manufactured, in the year 2004, and the accident took place, on 17.11.2011, i.e. after about seven years of the purchase of the same. It is evident, from the report of the Surveyor, and Loss Assessor Annexure R1/B, that except the aforesaid three parts, the remaining parts were found to be intact. As per the terms and conditions of the Policy, deprecation of metal parts was deducted @ 40% and depreciation of the rubber/plastic parts, was deducted @50%. Since, the Surveyor and Loss Assessor, found eleven parts, referred to above intact, he could not be expected to assess the loss, in respect thereof. He assessed loss, only in respect of three parts, which he found to have been damaged. If, in respect of the intact parts, the repair work or replacement work was got done, by the complainant, on her own, from Opposite Party No.2, then she was not to be compensated for the same, by Opposite Party No.1. Keeping in view the age of the vehicle, the depreciation in respect of the metal, rubber and plastic parts, as per the terms and conditions of the Policy, the repair of only three damaged parts of the car, the labour charges were, consequently, reduced. The labour charges, for replacement/repair of 14 parts, as estimated by the repairer, would have certainly been more than the labour charges, in respect of three damaged parts of the vehicle, which were on physical verification, found by the Surveyor, and Loss Assessor. The report of the Surveyor, no doubt, cannot be said to be the last word, yet, it has got significant evidentiary value. Mr. Inder Pal Singh, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, also submitted his affidavit, in support of his report. No cogent and convincing evidence, was produced by the complainant, on record, to prove that the report of the Surveyor and Loss Assessor, was, in any way, incorrect, or not based on the cogent data and material. Under these circumstances, in our considered opinion, the District Forum was right, in holding that the Surveyor and Loss Assessor, rightly assessed the loss of the damaged parts of the vehicle. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that surveyor himself has allowed opening/fitment charges for some of the parts namely; Fender RH, Fr Bumper, Hood, though, they have been shown intact in the surveyors report meaning thereby, these parts were not intact. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that though these parts were intact, but as they had to be opened for other necessary repairs, surveyor rightly allowed some amount in the head of opening/fitment charges. I agree with the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the respondent and I do not find any contradiction in the report of surveyor for allowing some charges in the heading of opening/fitment charges. In such circumstances, merely because some charges have been allowed by surveyor it cannot be presumed that these items were damaged which required repair charges.

PERUSAL of record further reveals that petitioner has not signed any voucher for accepting Rs.10,088/ -. As per surveyors report this amount has been sent by OP in the account of complainant through NEFT. In such circumstances, there was no occasion to file protest before crediting of this amount in complainant''s account. I do not agree with the finding of learned State Commission that complainant accepted payment without any protest and in such circumstances, complaint was not maintainable. As amount was directly transferred in complainant''s account, complainant had every right to file complaint and complaint can be thrown away on the ground of receiving payment without protest.

IN the light of above discussion, learned District Forum has not committed any error in dismissing complaint and learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing appeal on merits and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

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