NANDKUMAR MALEKAR vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 6.4.2002 in Complaint No. 118/2001 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (hereinafter called as ''Distt. Forum'' for short) directing the respondent/insurer to pay to the complainant as compensation Rs. 18,360/- with interest @ 10% per annum, as also cost of the complaint.

UNDISPUTABLY the complainant appellant is the owner of Mahindra Jeep bearing registration No. MP-24 RC 0047. The said jeep was purchased on finance from Jila Antyavasasi Sahakari Vikas Samiti and was insured with the respondent/insurer for the period from 24.1.2000 to 23.1.2001. It is also not in dispute that the said jeep met with an accident on 1.1.2001 and got damaged. The complainant laid claim with the respondent insurer which was repudiated by the respondent/insurer by their letter dated 15.5.2001 on the ground that the driver did not hold valid and effective driving licence, as it did not bear the endorsement for driving transport vehicle. The complainant feeling aggrieved by the repudiation of his claim as above filed the complaint before the Distt. Forum and prayed that compensation of Rs. 1,06,000/- with interest be awarded to him.

The respondent/insurer visited the complaint. It was averred that the vehicle was got financed for being used as taxi and it was registered as Maxicab. As the driver did not hold a licence with the endorsement to drive transport vehicle of the above description, there was breach of terms of policy by the complainant/owner, hence the appellant justifiably repudiated his claim.

THE Distt. Forum held that there was no breach of terms of policy, as alleged by the respondent/insurer. So far as compensation is concerned, it was observed by the Distt. Forum that Surveyor appointed by the respondent, M/s. Nanda and Nanda Associates has assessed the damage as Rs. 18,360/- the claim of the complainant was accordingly accepted to the above extent. Learned Counsel for the complainant/appellant submitted that the amount of compensation as above is inadequate. The learned Counsel for the respondent/insurer however opposed the submission as above and submitted that the Surveyor''s report ought to be accepted.

IT is not in dispute that the Surveyor M/s. Nanda and Nanda Associates was appointed by the respondent/insurer to evaluate and assess the loss. In his report dated 10.2.2001 the said Surveyor has assessed the net loss at Rs. 18,360/-. IT may however be noticed that many items have been disallowed in the survey report. Besides, the Surveyor has discounted the claim of the complainant/appellant on many items and has allowed much lesser sum. IT would appear on perusal of the said report, that in some instances the amount claimed has been unduly discounted and claim has been allowed for disproportionately low amounts by the Surveyor. For instance in Clause ''B'' of the details of the survey report under the heading chassis repairing, the complainant''s claim of Rs. 35,000/- has been reduced by the Surveyor to Rs. 4,800/-. IT may be noticed that the Surveyor himself has noticed on the said claim that the chassis was found badly bent and twisted from the middle and both the ends, complete assembly was oblonged and cross members were dislocated. In the circumstances, when the chassis of the vehicle was badly damaged as above as noted by the Surveyor himself, the amount of Rs. 4,800/- towards repair thereof appears to be very low and would not meet and actual cost required to rectify the above defect. Similarly glasses of headlights were claimed to be broken and claim of Rs. 1,000/- was made on that head, but the Surveyor assessed the cost at Rs. 160/-, which is much below the actual cost. Similarly, in the case of the claim regarding hood repairing of Rs. 3,000/-, the Surveyor has allowed only Rs. 800/-. Clearly, therefore, the deductions made by the Surveyor appear to be disproportionately low, to the actual cost for the repairs. Therefore, the Surveyor''s report cannot be accepted on its face value and the amount assessed by the Surveyor deserves to be enhanced. After considering the claim of the complainant and the circumstances of the case, we consider it just and proper to award Rs. 35,000/- as compensation and the amount for damage and repairs of the jeep. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is modified and it is directed that instead of compensation of Rs. 18,360/- as awarded by the Distt. Forum, an amount of Rs. 35,000/- with interest @ 10% per annum from 1.4.2001 shall be payable to the complainant/appellant by the respondent/insurer. The amount as above be paid within 2 months from the date of this order failing which interest would be payable thereon @ 15% per annum from the date of default. Appeal allowed.