NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD vs VIBGYOR STRUCTURAL CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD

-THIS revision petition is filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa, whereby the State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum. The facts in brief which lead the complainant to approach the District Forum are as under: the complainant, a construction company, had its Maruti Van insured with the opposite party, M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. for the period 10. 2. 1998 to 9. 2. 1999, during which period the vehicle met with an accident, i. e. , on 7. 8. 1998. The complainant had filed an FIR and also informed the Insurance Company who had deputed a Surveyor. The complainant states that at the request of the Surveyor, he had brought the vehicle, to the garage and obtained an estimate for repairing of the damaged vehicle from the Maruti Service Centre who had estimated the cost of repairs at Rs. 3,60,690. 60. This estimate was shown to the Surveyor. Since the Insurance Company did not settle the claim till 21. 10. 1998, the complainant had to approach the District Forum claiming the ensured cost of the vheicle at Rs. 3,48,214 along with Rs. 1,40,000 spent on hiring private vehicle in the absence of the vehicle in question. In spite of many opportunities, the opposite party did not file reply and the District Forum had to proceed in the absence of the reply, but the Counsel for the opposite party was heard.

THE contentions of the opposite party before the District Forum were that the complainant, had not brought the vehicle to the garage of Maruti Service Station as per the advice of the Surveyor and instead had taken it to its garage, and, according to this act of the complainant, he had violated the conditions of the policy, and that in the absence of the M. V. I. report, it would not be admitted that the vehicle was completely damaged, as contended by the complainant. The opposite party also contended that the Insurance Company was ready to pay the cost of repair at the Maruti Service Centre. Lastly, it was contended that there was no deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Insurance Company. The District Forum upon hearing both the parties held the Insurance Company had failed to depute the Final Surveyor, apart from appointing the Spot Surveyor; that it is nobody''s case that the vehicle had not met with the accident; and that the Insurance Company failed to file the written statement denying the claim of the complainant: that till date neither the claim of the complainant had been settled nor repudiated, and that such delay in not settling the valid and genuine claim of the insurer amounts to deficiency in service for which the complainant was entitled for compensation. With these observations the District Forum partly allowed the case of the Insurance Company by directing it to settle the claim within one month from the date of the order, with compensation assessed at Rs. 5,000 and costs at Rs. 500.

Since the opposite party did not comply with the order of the District Forum, the complainant approached the District Forum again in execution. The District Forum upon considering the material placed on record returned the finding that the opposite party had violated its order and imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,000 on this count and disposed of the execution petition by giving a direction to the Insurance Company to comply with its order forthwith.

FEELING dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum the Insurance Company went in appeal to the State Commission. The State Commission upon hearing both the parties, adverting to the material placed before it, especially the survey report, held that the insured was entitled to the full amount under the policy as the vehicle was completely damaged and dismissed the appeal.

NOW, the Insurance Company is petitioner before us. Heard the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company. In this case the vehicle which was less than one year old met with an accident and suffered substantial damage. The Surveyor has arrived at an estimate of loss of Rs. 1,67,000 after deducting the value of the salvage. He has arrived at this figure on the basis of the parts. The question was gone into by the District Forum as well as the State Commission. After examining the material in the light of the estimates which were given by the Surveyor, finding of deficiency was returned because the value of the vehicle was found to be Rs. 3,48,214 by the Surveyor. The Surveyor, however, simply stated the value of parts without providing any data about the value of each part which appears to be arbitrary and we find no infirmity in the impugned order of the State Commission which calls for our interference under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Revision Petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.