New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs MAHESH KUMAR NIKHRA

THIS is an appeal by the Insurance Company against the decision of District Forum, Gwalior directing it to pay compensation of Rs. 19,319.54 together with interest at the rate of 12% from 9.5.91 till payment as also Rs. 100/- as costs of the proceedings and Rs. 250/- as counsel fee.

THE respondent/complainant had contended before the Forum that the Insurance Company was guilty of deficiency in service inasmuch as it did not pay the entire amount for which it was liable under an accident policy. THE complainant had insured his vehicle with the appellant/Insurance Company. THE vehicle met with an accident on 6.11.90. THE accident was reported to the Insurance Company on 7.11.90. THE Surveyor was sent by the Insurance Company for spot enquiry. THE vehicle was towed down to Gwalior where it was got repaired at Baljeet Motor Works. According to the complainant the costs of the repairs came to Rs. 19,319.85 and the bill for the amount was submitted to the Insurance Company. The complainant further contended that Shri R.K. Anand the Opposite Party No. 3 was the Surveyor deputed by the Insurance Company for verifying the expenses of repair. This Surveyor demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 2000/- from the complainant and when the complainant did not oblige, the Surveyor certified the expenses to the extent of Rs. 4,005/- only. The complainant claimed Rs. 19319.85 as costs of repairs, Rs. 7,000 as loss suffered during 20 days the vehicle remained off the road, Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 1500/- towards the interest. After taking evidence of the parties the District Forum upheld the claim of Rs. 19,319.85 relying on the evidence produced by the complainant. Hence this appeal.

We have heard the parties and perused the record. Assessment of actual cost of repair of a vehicle is essentially a question of fact depending on evidence. produced by the parties. The Forum has examined the evidence in detail and has for cogent reasons held that the evidence as to the actual cost of repairs produced by the complainant was reliable. The evidence produced by the Insurance Company was totally based on the report of the Surveyor against whom a serious allegation of having demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 2,000/-was made by the complainant. It is not for us to go into the question as to whether the illegal gratification was actually demanded or not. But, in our opinion it was incumbent on the Insurance Company to have got the survey-report submitted by such a person verified and corroborated by some other Surveyor. It was wrong on the part of the Insurance Company to have solely relied on the report of a person against whom a serious charge has been made by the complainant. Fairness demanded that the Insurance Company as a public body should have deputed an independent Surveyor to verify and cross-check survey report submitted by Shri R.K. Anand and lead that evidence before the Forum. This having not been done, the Forum was right in taking the evidence of Shri R.K. Anand with a pinch of salt. The Forum has also rightly observed that the bill of costs produced by the complainant is in details and accounts for every item on which the money was spent. It was thus possible for the Insurance Company to meet the case of the complainant by showing as to how the amount claimed in the bill was excessive with reference to each and every head on which the money was said to have been spent. Nothing of this kind has been done and, therefore, the Forum had no alternative but to rely on the testimony of the complainant and the detailed statement of expenses submitted by him.

THE Forum has observed that as against this evidence in details what Shri R.K. Anand the Surveyor has done is to scale down the bill submitted by the complainant on each and every count without showing the reasons for doing so. When the Surveyor had scaled down the amounts claimed to have been spent by the complainant he had to give reasons for doing so. This having not been done, the Surveyor''s estimate becomes questionable. We therefore find that the Forum has correctly accepted the version of the complainant so far as the costs of repairs and the bringing the vehicle again on road are concerned. The Insurance Company had also claimed deduction of 25% amount as penalty on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not hold the licence to drive the particular class of vehicles to which the concerned vehicle is belonged. The Forum has held that the vehicle was registered as light goods vehicle with an unladen weight of 5300 kgms. The Forum has held that under the Motor Vehicles Act such a vehicle would be categorized as light motor vehicle. Driver had license for driving light motor vehicle. We do not find any infirmity in this finding also. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no force in this appeal. It is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.