National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs NAGENDRA P.D. SINGH

THIS is an appeal against the order of the learned District Forum, Patna dated 23.5.92 in Complaint Case No. 424 of 1991. By this order the learned District Forum has directed the opposite party - National Insurance Company (appellant before us) to pay to the complainant (respondent before us) a total sum of Rs. 41,032/- including compensation of Rs. 10,000/- along with interest @ 18% with effect from 12.2.91 upto the date of payment. The Appellant have filed the appeal taking the plea that the learned District Forum made an award in favour of the complainant-respondent on conjectures and surmises without considering the contentions made in their written statement before the learned District Forum.

WE have heard the learned Advocates for the appellant and the respondent and perused the records of the learned District Forum, Patna. The facts of the case in brief are that the Maxi-Taxi bearing number BHC 2223 belonging to the complainant-respondent met an accident on 13.5.1989. This vehicle was covered under Policy No. 70801/6302957/88/11/2957 and was valid for the period 26.6.1988 to 25.6.1989. The accident, therefore, occurred on the date which fell within the period for which the vehicle was insured. Information for the accident was given on 25.5.1989 to the appellant and a claim for Rs. 61,700/-was filed with the Insurance Company on 13.5.1989. The appellant deputed Surveyor Shri A. K. Sinha who submitted his report on 6.8.1989 and assessed the claim of the complainant-respondent at Rs. 31,032/-. There after another Surveyor Shri S.R.N. Kalia was deputed for re-inspection of the repaired vehicle on 29.12.1989 and he duly submitted his report dated 13.1.1990. In this report Shri Kalia pointed out that the insured have not submitted many parts of salvage which were recommended for replacement and that some part of salvage were produced which was not recommended by the Surveyor Shri A.K. Sinha in his report dated 6.8.1989. He also pointed out that the vehicle produced before him did not tally with the photograph taken at the time of survey made by Shri A.K. Sinha and further that the vehicle produced before him did not have engine number and chassis number. Thereafter Shri A.K. Sinha was again deputed by the Insurance Company on 1.8.1990 to reinspect the vehicle and submit his report which he did vide his report dated 4.9.1990 and in this report it is mentioned that in his earlier report itself it is clearly mentioned that the engine number and the chasis number of the vehicle was verified physically during the first survey. He gave the chasis number and the engine number of the vehicle in this report also. Thereafter another Surveyor and Loss Assessor Shri Manoj Kumar was deputed by the Insurance Company on 7.2.1991 to verify the genuineness of the bills and cash memo furnished by the insured. He submitted his report on 12.2.1991 saying that he has made the necessary verification from the dealers and with the duplicates of cash-memo found there to be correct. The Insurance Company, however, deputed yet another Surveyor Shri N.N. Jha on 29.5.1991 who submitted his report dated 24.6.1991 and assessed the loss of the complainant-respondent at Rs. 8,887.00 only.

The complainant-respondent submitted before the learned District Forum that the undue delay in settling his claim and the deputation of as many as four Surveyors who conducted five surveys and inspections (Shri A.K. Sinha did it twice) - was only on account of the fact that he was not prepared to pay illegal gratification demand from him by the functionaries of the Insurance Company and finding that the officers of the Insurance Company were bent upon harassing him for no justifiable reason he filed the complaint before the District Forum. He pointed out that inspite of fact that the claim was filed as early as 30.5.89 no steps to finalize his claim was taken till 24.8.91 the date of his complaint and there was, therefore, definitely a deficiency in the service expected to be rendered by the appellant-Insurance Company.

THE case of the appellant-Insurance Company, however, is that there was a delay in submitting the information of the appellant which was given to him after the date of accident and the cash memo was submitted very late i.e., 19.9.90 when the repairs of vehicles was completed on 16.8.89. Further it is contended by the appellant that there was a Taxi, which was met with an accident and was carrying 60 to 70 passengers against 16 passengers. It is further contended that there was a discrepancy about who was driving the vehicle himself and again said that a driver was driving it. In any case the driver''s badge was not produced. It is further contended that the vehicle was running on a route in which it has no permit. Finally it has been contended that the complainant himself make the delay in submission of bills and cash memos and after this was done by him investigation of the claim was done and so there is no deficiency in service. THE allegations about the officials of the Insurance Company here of course been denied. These points were taken before the learned District Forum also in their written statement. The complainant-respondent in the rejoinder submitted by him on 27.3.92 to the District Forum met all these points taken by the appellant-Insurance Company in/the written statement. In this rejoinder it is specifically mentioned that he has submitted tax token, road permit, driving license, M.V.I. Report to the Branch Manager, Patna Branch of the National Insurance Company for inspection. About the absence of badge number it was stated in this petition that the production of badge number was not necessary in his case because the instructions in this regard were issued only on 30.10.91 whereas his case related to a much earlier period i.e. 13.5.89 when the accident took place. A Photostat copy of the instructions of the Insurance Company dated 30.10.89 was also produced before us. In his rejoinder petition to the District Forum mentioned above the complainant has further mentioned (in para 13) three cases relating to BPA 8509,7788 and 9087 when the drivers had no badge numbers and the appellant-Insurance Company paid their claims and that even, it is alleged, no spot verification was made, in these cases.

WE find from the orders of the learned District Forum that they have gone through all these points carefully before coming to conclusion that the Insurance Company should pay a total sum of Rs. 41,032/- including compensation of Rs. 10000/- along with the interest @ 18%. Regarding the delay in giving the information about the accident, it is seen that no period is prescribed within which the information must be given to the Insurer. WE also feel that if the Insurance Company had any doubt about the genuineness of the claim or about the genuineness of the vehicle produced for inspection, they could have repudiated, the claim altogether. On this point we, however, find that the none of the survey reports (which are total five in number) have challenged the genuineness of the claim. It is the amount of admissible claim which has been reduced from Rs. 31,032/-as appearing in the report of Surveyor Shri A.K. Sinha to Rs. 8,887/- in the Survey Report of Shri N.N. Jha. WE also find that the appellant Insurance Company has not denied the payment of claim to the three vehicles mentioned by the complainant-respondent in the rejoinder petition filed before the learned District Forum on 27.3.1992 or before us in their petition dated 26.11.1992 (Para 7) in respect of the drivers of these vehicles having no badge numbers on their licenses. WE also do not find any justification for deputing one Surveyor after another even after the bills and cash memos pertaining to this vehicle were duly verified and found to be correct. And there has been also a lot of time taken by the appellant-Insurance Company in deputing the Surveyors. The first Surveyor Shri A.K. Sinha''s report was submitted on 6.8.1989. The second Surveyor Shri S.R.N. Kalia was deputed on 29th December, 1989 who submitted his report dated 13th January, 1990. The third survey report from Shri A.K. Sinha was asked for by the Insurance Company on 1.8.1990 who submitted his report on 4.9.1990. The fourth survey and verification was requested on 7.2.1991 and Shri Manoj Kumar submitted his report on 12.2.1991 and the fifth report from Shri N.N. Jha was called for on 17.5.1991 and he submitted his report on 24.6.1991. From the above narration of dates it is seen that there is a delay of few months after obtaining the reports of the surveyor before asking for another survey report. No action was taken by the appellant-Insurance Company to decide one way or the other the case of the complainant even after Shri N.N. Jha''s report was received two months before the date on which the complaint was filed. All these clearly shows the deficiency in service on the part of the appellant-Insurance Company. It also cost an aspersion about the intentions of the officers of the appellant, the Insurance Company with regard to the claim made by the complainant-respondent. We, therefore, see no reasons to interfere with the well reasoned orders of the learned District Forum and in result therefore the appeal is dismissed. Over and above the amount payable to the respondent as per orders of the learned District Forum the appellant will also pay cost of appeal which we assess at Rs. 1,000/-. Appeal dismissed with costs.