National Insurance Company Ltd. vs V.K. Gupta

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 31.5.1993 passed by District Consumer Forum, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 521/1993. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant claimed compensation against the Insurance Company for damages which caused to his vehicle. It is alleged that the complainant got his Maruti car No. DDB 7351 insured with opposite party No. 1, National Insurance Company Ltd. The cover note was issued on 20.1.1990 and the period of insurance was upto 19.1.1991. THIS car met with an accident on 11.8.1990 for which opposite party was informed. The opposite party deputed Sri D.K. Varshney, Surveyor who conducted a spot survey and submitted a claim for the damages sustained by him on account of accident to the car. Sri R.K. Singhal was appointed as Surveyor by the Insurance Company who inspected the damaged vehicle and confirmed the damages. After the repairs, the vehicle was re-inspected by one Sri Subhash Chand who was also appointed as Surveyor. Thereafter the complainant provided all the papers with respect to the damaged car and co-opperated with the Insurance Company for settlement of the claim, but the Insurance Company did not settle the claim which shows deficiency in service on their part.

THE complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 60,000/- on account of damages caused to the car and the opposite party is liable to pay the same alongwith 24% per annum interest from the date of accident to the date of payment. He has also claimed special damages of Rs. 25,000/- for mental pain etc. The opposite party, Insurance Company, contested the claim and admitted that the Surveyors were appointed by it for assessing the loss. It is further alleged that Maj. S.R. Anand was also deputed to re-assess and investigating the claim of the complainant who submitted his report on 25.6.1991. It is wrong to say that the claim was settled. The complainant was informed about the Surveyors and Investigator''s report and as such there is no deficiency in service provided by the Insurance Company. It was informed to the complainant that the claim is not payable for the reason that there is no satisfactory proof furnished by the complainant of having got the vehicle damaged. The complainant is not entitled to claim any amount as alleged.

Further it was alleged that the complaint is barred by time. The report of Maj. B.R. Anand states that the car was never repaired in the workshop of M/s. United Motors and it was sold out without repairs. The bills procured from M/s. Samsons Automobiles, 36, Guru Nanak Auto Market, Kashmeri Gate, Delhi were false. These bills relate to vehicle No. DDV 7351 and not for the vehicle under question. The vehicle was not got repaired as alleged.

THE learned District Forum, after hearing the Counsel for the parties and considering evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the Insurance Company is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 54,247.50 alongwith interest at the rate of 18% since 1.3.1991 till the date of payment. A sum of Rs. 400/- was also allowed as cost. Aggrieved against the order of the learned District Forum, the appellant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the evidence on record. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the vehicle was not brought to the workshop or repaired and it was sold before it was repaired. In the alternative it is argued that the report of Maj. B.R. Anand, who was appointed to assess the loss should have been accepted for damages amounting to Rs. 26,180/- only. A perusal of the record will go to show that in this case one Surveyor was appointed who had done spot survey and has given the extent of damages. He was Mr. D.K. Varshney. Thereafter Sri R.K. Singhal was appointed as Surveyor and he reported about the loss caused to the vehicle. Copy of the report is on record. Thereafter one Sri Subhash Chandra was appointed as Surveyor. Copy of that report is also on record which shows that he visited the place where the vehicle was got repaired and it was found that the vehicle was got repaired by the complainant. When these three Surveyors had already been appointed who had surveyed the vehicle and intimated the extent of damage and verified about the condition of the vehicle, then again appointing Maj. Anand to re-assess the damages means some mala fide intention on the part of the Insurance Company in order to get this report to minimise the loss which was assessed by other Surveyors. No reason has been given as to why the previous report was rejected and Maj. B.R. Anand was asked to do re-assessment. If re-assessment of any particular item was necessary, then it could have been mentioned and the Surveyor could have cleared the confusion which existed in the previous report. As a matter of fact if there was some doubt or confusion, then it should have been referred back to the same Surveyor who had reported about the loss. The appointment of successive Surveyors is to be depricated because the Insurance Company wants that it should not pay the due amount but tries to manipulate the amount which it wants to pay by appointing Surveyor after Surveyor unless a report which suits it is submitted. The report of Maj. B.R. Anand was liked by the Insurance Company otherwise another Surveyor would have been appointed by the Insurance Company. This question also cropped up before the Jaipur State Commission who also held that the Insurance Company cannot appoint one Surveyor after the other. This decision was rendered in the case of Virendra Choudhary v. United Insurance Company, III (1996) CPJ 154. As a matter of fact it is the preliminary duty of the Insurance Company to repair the vehicle. If the Insurance Company does not get the vehicle repaired then only the claimant gets the vehicle repaired. Thus the report of Maj. B.R. Anand was rightly rejected by the Insurance Company.

NOW we come to the next argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the vehicle was never got repaired and it was sold. According to the learned Counsel this fact was suppressed and was not mentioned in the complaint. Hence the claim is to be disallowed as the material fact was suppressed. The law is that if there is a suppression of material fact then only the Insurance Company is discharged of its liability. If the fact is not material in the decision of the controversy in this dispute, and does not affect the merits of the case, then it has no bearing and has to be ignored. In the present case both on facts and law the Insurance Company does not stand anywhere.

THE report of the Surveyors S/Sri R.K. Singhal, Subhash Chand will go to show that the vehicle was repaired and the articles purchased on the basis of requirements were verified by these Surveyors. A detailed discussion on this point has been found in the judgment of the learned District Forum with which we agree. We need not repeat the reasons given by the learned District Forum to reject this contention of the appellant. Both these reports show that the vehicle was actually repaired. Even if this fact was not mentioned in the complaint about the transfer of the vehicle, that does not affect the merits of the case at all. Here we are not concerned with the sale of the vehicle but we are concerned with the quantum of damages sustained by the vehicle. Even if the vehicle was sold after the accident and its final survey was done for assessing the damages, but before the finalisation of the claim, it was not necessary to have mentioned this fact in complaint. There is no relevance of this fact because we are concerned only with the quantum of damages which the claimant is entitled to get on account of the accident to the vehicle. Thus we find that the Insurance Company merely in order to defeat the claim of the complainant has taken this plea to deprive the complainant of the amount which he is entitled to get. Thus we find that this appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed. Order

The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum is confirmed. The respondent will get a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as cost from the appellant. Let compliance of this order be made within two months from the date of this order. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed.