New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs BAIDYANATH DANDAPAT

THE Mayurbhanj District Forum (by majority) has directed the appellants to pay to the respondent Rs. 1,77,000 towards the cost of the body shell of the vehicle including the cost of repairing, Rs. 5,850 towards the cost of the radiator, Rs. 1,000 as compensation and Rs. 500 as costs by order dated 30.8.2003 in C.D. Case No. 90 of 2003. Being felt aggrieved by the said order, the New India Assurance Company Limited has filed this appeal.

ADMITTEDLY the respondent is the registered owner of "Tata Sumo" vehicle, which was comprehensively insured with the appellant. While the insurance policy was in force, the vehicle met with an accident on 24.4.2002 and it was badly damaged. He shifted the damaged vehicle to the garage on 25.4.2002. On being intimated, the appellants deputed one S.K. Sahu to inspect the vehicle and assess the damage. After the vehicle was inspected, the respondent took it to the authorised dealer - ASL Motors Private Limited at Jamshedpur for necessary repair. The radiator was damaged in the accident. Therefore, he purchased a new radiator from United Sales Agency, Calcutta and after replacing the damaged one with new radiator, he took the vehicle to Jamshedpur by road. The Divisional Manager of the appellant at Balasore requested his counterpart at Jamshedpur for re-survey of the vehicle. One R.K. Singh surveyed the vehicle and gave an acceptance note. He recommended spare parts to be replaced. In accordance with the recommendation, the respondent replaced the spare parts and got the vehicle repaired. After completion of the repair work, he brought the vehicle to Baripada. He submitted all papers for settlement of the claim and reimbursement of the money he had spent towards the repair of the vehicle. Although the claim was genuine, the appellants did not settle it, which compelled him to file the complaint. The appellants in the written version pleaded that the damage to the vehicle was assessed at Rs. 72,000 only and this amount was offered to the respondent, but he did not accept it.

There is no dispute that the vehicle in question was comprehensively insured with the appellants. The vehicle was damaged in the accident while the policy was in force. The vehicle was a new one and it met with the accident within a short period of the purchase. The main dispute between the parties is with regard to replacement of the body shell with a new one. The appellants'' contention is that it could have been repaired and there was no necessity to incur the price of a new body shell. It is relevant to note here that the appellant No. 2 (Divisional Manager) wrote to his counter-part at Jamshedpur to depute one Surveyor for inspection of the vehicle at ASL Motors Private Limited, Jamshedpur. Accordingly, the Divisonal Manager at Jamshedpur deputed one R.K. Singh for the purpose. The Surveyor (R.K. Singh) in his letter dated 19.2.2003 wrote to the Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, Jamshedpur (Annexure 10) saying that the vehicle was only one month and twenty days old when it met with the accident, for which its body shell was pressed/deshaped from all sides. The repairer categorically stated that on repairing it might not be brought to its original condition. The matter was then discussed with the then Senior Divisional Manager (late Ashok Kumar), who also talked to the repairer - ASL Motors Private Limited and thereafter replacement of the body shell was allowed. The Surveyor further stated in the aforesaid letter that as insured was having a new vehicle, he cannot be forced to repair an item, which the repairer had denied to repair on the ground that it might not be brought to its original condition. The facts stated in the letter of the Surveyor would clearly and unambiguously go to show that the vehicle was badly damaged and only by replacement with newly body shell it could be brought to its original condition. It was necessary to replace with a new body shell because the vehicle was only one month and twenty days old and repairing of the body shell could not bring it to its original condition.

THE copy of the bill of the repairer - ASL Motors Private Limited is at Annexure 4 to the complaint. He has charged the respondent Rs. 1,78,551 (Rs. 1,15,000 cost of the body shell and the balance towards repairing charges). THE repairer (ASL Motors Private Limited) however received Rs. 1,77,000 against its bills for Rs. 1,78,551 from the respondent vide Annexure 2 to the complaint as full and final settlement of the bill. In view of the aforesaid, the District Forum rightly held that the respondent is entitled to Rs. 1,77,000 towards the cost of the body shell and repairing charges of the vehicle. Admittedly, the respondent purchased one radiator on payment of Rs. 5,850 (Annexure 3 to the complaint). THE respondent had to purchase the new radiator for taking the vehicle to authorised agent at Jamshedpur. THE District Forum has, therefore, rightly directed to the appellants to pay this amount also to the respondent. No exception can be taken to imposition of compensation of Rs. 1,000 and cost of Rs. 500 on the appellant. For the reason mentioned above, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Records received from the District Forum may be sent back forthwith. Appeal dismissed.