NARENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL vs ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD

PETITIONER Narendra Kumar Agarwal who is the complainant in this case, insured his Truck No. UP06/5229 with the respondent company. During the period of the insurance cover, the vehicle met with an accident on 7.1.2003 in which it was completely destroyed and damaged and, therefore, the petitioner submitted a claim of compensation of Rs. 4,23,424 on account of loss suffered by him due to this accident. FIR was lodged and intimation was sent to the company. The Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor who investigated and gave his report in which he assessed the losses to the tune of Rs. 1,40,000.

A consumer complaint came to be filed by the petitioner with the District Forum which after appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties before it accepted the complaint of the petitionervide its order dated 6.12.2005 by holding the complainant entitled to a compensation of Rs. 4,23,424 on account of the loss suffered by him. The respondent Insurance Company was directed to pay the amount of compensation within one month failing which the amount would carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till payment. Litigation expenses of Rs. 2,000 were also awarded in favour of the complainant. The District Forum rejected the plea of the Insurance Company that the complainant was entitled to be awarded compensation of Rs. 1,40,000 only as duly assessed by the authorised Surveyor of the Insurance Company. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Insurance Company filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand, Dehradun ( "State Commission '' '' for short) whichvide its order dated 23.7.2009 partly allowed the appeal and modified the order of the District Forum in the following terms: "Appellant is directed to pay sum of Rs. 1,40,000 to the complainant towards repair cost of the vehicle together with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till payment. The insurance company is directed to appoint a Surveyor to assess the loss suffered by the engine assembly and rear tube of the accidental vehicle after getting the said items dismantled and then to finalize the further claim of the complainant in respect of the said items within two months. "

IT is against the aforesaid order of the State Commission that the present revision petition has been filed by the complainant.

WE have heard Mr. Lav Kumar Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioner and perused the record. The broad facts of the case and the sequence of events are not in dispute. The question of law which has arisen for our consideration in this case is as to whether the State Commission was justified in modifying the relief given by the District Forum in favour of the petitioner/complainant by limiting the compensation in terms of the report of the Surveyor. The State Commission in its impugned order has specifically noted that even though the date of accident is 7.1.2003 on which, according to the complainant, the insured vehicle was completely destroyed and damaged, the intimation to the police was sent belatedly on 18.1.2003 by the complainant and letter sent to the Superintendent of Police, Pouri Garhwal merely mentions that the truck fell in a roadside gorge, the depth of which was not indicated. It has also been noted by the State Commission that the driver and conductor occupying the truck at the time of the accident did not sustain any serious injury. Taking note of these peculiar facts and the material on record, the State Commission has held that the District Forum came to an unfair conclusion that "above all the vehicle, which fell 200 metres down in a deep gorge, can invariably be understood that the vehicle has been immensely damaged. " Besides this, the State Commission has also recorded the following reasons in support of the impugned order in paras 4 and 5 thereof: "Further, the District Forum gave no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the report of the authorised Surveyor (Paper Nos. 17/1C to 17/8C) by observing that "the complainant as alleged had made the repair estimate on 23.1.2003 and had submitted it with the insurance company way before the survey report was submitted on 13.4.2003. So, the report of the Surveyor seems to be an afterthought, which seems to have been prepared in collusion with the insurance company. " In the case of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Maya, II (2008) CPJ 182 (NC), the Hon ''ble National Commission observed that ''a catena of judgments of both the Apex Court as well National Commission have noted the point that a surveyor ''s report should not be dismissed summarily, as the Surveyor has the role of independent and qualified person appointed under the relevant provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938, as amended from time to time. '' There can be no gain saying that the District Forum, has against the settled legal position, summarily dismissed the surveyor ''s report, by saying that it was an afterthought estimate, although the authorised and qualified Surveyor Sh. Pardeep Singh has assessed the loss for each and every damaged part less depreciation plus reasonable cost of fitting and labour charges after comparing the so-called estimate submitted by the complainant. Therefore, there was no justifiable reason for the District Forum to reject the surveyor ''s report in contrast to the estimate submitted by the complainant and which, as is evident from the same, appear to be the quotations regarding parts, etc. and labour charges asked for as such by the complainant from the dealer. No doubt, complainant besides his own affidavit, also placed on record the affidavits of the persons, who submitted the quotations, but we do not think that these quotations are realistic and provide true and correct picture of the repair cost of the vehicle excluding the above mentioned items. Here it shall not be out of place to mention that although Ashish Kumar Singhal, the proprietor of M/s. Ashish Agencies, the authorised dealer who submitted the quotation dated 23.1.2003, averred in his affidavit (Paper No. 8/5A) that the estimate was prepared by the qualified Service and Mechanical Engineers duly appointed by Ashok Leyland Ltd., the manufacturer of the truck, but could not name any of them, in order to attach authenticity to his allegation. Therefore, we see no manner of doubt in the fact that the quotation/so-called estimate is a got up document, which do not provide true and correct picture of the repair cost of the vehicle and in the totality of the circumstances of the case, the only document which could have been relied upon for repair cost of the vehicle was the report of the Surveyor. Therefore, the District Forum was not at all justified in accepting the complainant ''s claim in toto and that the complainant was entitled to not more than sum of Rs. 1,40,000 towards repair cost of the accidental vehicle. It was not in dispute that the engine assembly and rear tube of the vehicle have not yet been dismantled and the assessment of loss after dismantling these items is required to be made by company ''s Surveyor, whereafter the further claim shall be finalized according to law and the amount to be paid to the complainant in addition to the above sum of Rs. 1,40,000. "

We agree with the view taken by the State Commission while modifying the order of the District Forum and reducing the compensation based on the report of the authorised Surveyor. The view taken by the State Commission is in line with the view taken by the National Commission and the Apex Court in a number of similar cases. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The revision petition stands dismissed at the threshold with no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.