New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs RANVEER SINGH RAWAT

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 26.7.2000 passed by District Consumer Forum, Uttarkashi in Complaint Case No. 95/1999.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant Ranveer Singh Rawat is the owner of Jeep No. UP-07G/4377. THE jeep in question was insured with the opposite party, THE New India Assurance Company Limited for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- from 19.6.1998 to 18.6.1999. THE policy number given by the Insurance Company was 3132190205313. THE amount of premium paid was Rs. 7,901/-. THE vehicle in question was comprehensively insured. THE said vehicle met with an accident on 1.12.1998 on Kaunwa-Kapnole Motor Road and near the bridge Simalsari. It fell down in a deep gorge about 50 to 60 feets down the motor road. THE information of the accident was given to the opposite party on 2.12.1998 on the next day of the accident. THE spot Surveyor of the opposite party along with complainant made a spot investigation on 2.12.1998 itself and the Surveyor made the spot survey on 3.12.1998 and assessed the loss at Rs. 35,000/-. Inspite of the survey thus made the opposite party did not give the claim form in time and was not willing to settle the claim right from the beginning. The complainant on the direction of the opposite party arranged for a crane and the vehicle thus accidented was lifted from the deep gorge and its body was taken to Dehradoon where the Surveyor of the opposite party again made a survey. The complainant spent a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in lifting the vehicle from the deep gorge and took it to Dehradoon by a relief van. All necessary documents including the copies of registration certificate, the first information report, fitness certificate of the vehicle, licence of the driver, route permit and the tax certificates, etc. were submitted to the opposite party but no action was taken and the claim has not been settled. A number of reminders were sent to the opposite party but to no avail. The Surveyor of the opposite party had assessed the loss of Rs. 35,000/- and if the same had been settled in his favour in time, he would not have incurred loss which occurred to him because of non-payment of the claim. The complainant had deployed his own money in getting the vehicle repaired. There is no justification for delaying the settlement of the claim which is a deficiency on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has claimed an amount of Rs. 35,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 5.12.1998 till the date of payment. An amount of Rs. 16,000/- has been claimed in lieu of the financial loss. A further amount of Rs. 15,000/- has been claimed for lifting the vehicle from the site of accident and its transportation to Dehradun. Thus an amount of Rs. 66,000/- in all has been claimed by the complainant along with the cost and interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

In the written version before the District Consumer Forum, the insurance of the jeep was admitted. The accident was also admitted. It was stated by the opposite party that the complainant had already removed the vehicle from the site of the accident before the spot Surveyor reached the spot. The vehicle in question was not totally damaged and assessment of loss of Rs. 35,000/- was denied. The claim could not be settled because certain clarifications had been sought from the complainant, the reply of which was never given by him. In the registration certificate submitted by the complainant the name of the owner of the vehicle has been shown as Ravinder Singh Rawat whereas the name of the complainant is Ranveer Singh Rawat. When a clarification to this effect was sought from the complainant, no reply was given. A number of reminders were sent to the complainant and instead the claim was lodged before the District Consumer Forum. There has been no deficiency on the part of the opposite party.

THE parties led evidence before the District Consumer Forum in the form of affidavits and copies of other documents. After hearing both the parties, the learned District Consumer Forum decreed the claim of the complainant and awarded a sum of Rs. 66,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% with effect from the date of accident i.e. 1.12.1998 till the date of payment. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- was also allowed as cost to the complainant. Aggrieved of this order, the opposite party, The New India Assurance Company Limited, has come in this appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by learned District Consumer Forum.

WE have heard the learned Counsels for the two parties. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the claim of the complainant has not been repudiated and the same was not settled because certain information was asked which the complainant failed to give and that is why the claim has not yet been settled. It was also argued that before the spot Surveyor could see the vehicle on the place of accident, the vehicle had been removed and was lifted by the crane and was kept on road. It was further argued that as per the report of the Surveyor an amount of Rs. 9,870/- was assessed as loss to the vehicle. The amount of Rs. 15,000/- claimed for lifting the vehicle by the crane and taking it to Dehradun by road is also not admissible as in such cases the Insurance Company does not pay more than Rs. 1,500/-. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that an amount of Rs. 35,000/- was spent on the repairs of the vehicle and this assessment accompanied by the documentary evidence has been given to the opposite party and, therefore, there is no basis for assessing the loss at Rs. 9,870/-. We have also gone through the entire evidence placed on the record of the appeal filed. The insurance as well as the accident have been admitted by both the parties. The dispute between the parties is that the opposite party had not repudiated the claim and the claim was not settled because certain informations asked for was not given by the complainant inspite of a number of reminders. The amount claimed is also disputed. The information asked for by the appellant was that why the vehicle in question was removed from the place of accident as it was against the terms of the policy. The other information asked was that in the registration certificate of the vehicle, the name of the owner of the vehicle was Ravinder Singh Rawat and not Ranveer Singh Rawat who is the insured. A perusal of the copy of registration certificate (paper 33 of the memo of appeal) will go to show that the name of the registered owner has been shown as Ravinder Singh Rawat s/o Sri Par Singh Rawat. A perusal of the other documents placed on the appeal file goes to show that the owner of the vehicle is Ranveer Singh Rawat S/o Sri Par Singh Rawat. It is a clerical mistake that has occurred in the registration certificate. The name of father and other particulars are same. This aspect of the matter has been dealt-with at length by the District Consumer Forum concerned who has come to the conclusion that the owner of the vehicle was Ranveer Singh Rawat and not Ravinder Singh Rawat. When all other particulars including the name of the father and the details of the vehicle have not been disputed then the mere fact that the name of the owner has been entered wrongly because of clerical error does not at all go to substantiate the plea of the appellant and, therefore, the appellant in our opinion did not make a proper application of mind and instead went on writing to the complainant to clarify the position inspite of the fact that in the Surveyor''s report on page 37 it has been clarified by the Surveyor that the registered owner mentioned in the route permit is Ranveer Singh Rawat s/o Sri Par Singh Rawat. We are, therefore, not inclined to agree with this argument of the appellant. The details available on record are complete proof of the fact that the owner of the vehicle is the complainant and not any other person. In regard to the information sought from the complainant that how he had removed the vehicle from the place of accident. It is sufficient to point out that the owner of the vehicle would not like the vehicle to remain at the place where it fell down in the deep gorge. When such an accident takes place, specially in the high hills, the first job done by the insured in such cases is to retrieve the vehicle. The vehicle was retrieved from the deep gorge and was taken on the road and put for inspection of the Surveyor at Barnigad and the losses were assessed at that place only. The spot Surveyor has verified the details of accident and had also assessed the loss to the vehicle. Even the report of the second Surveyor is clear on this aspect. The spot Surveyor could not have gone to the deep pit where the vehicle had fallen and he could have inspected only when to had been lifted by the crane and put on the road for inspection. This precisely was done by the insured, therefore, the query made to the complainant was with a view to harrass the complainant rather than to proceed with the sanction of the claim. The Insurance Company should not have taken advantage of these vexatious queries. The claim should have been settled by interpreting the record submitted by the complainant in the right spirit. In view of this the settlement of the claim should not have been delayed by the Insurance Company on this ground.

NOW coming to the quantum of loss, the second Surveyor in Column 11 of the survey report has assessed a total loss of Rs. 35,400/- but later on the Surveyor has assessed the damages of Rs. 9,870/- only. There appears to be no basis for this difference. The spot survey report has pointed out as many as 21 details of losses in which steel frame of body has been reported as tilted and pressed, bonnet broken, mudguards pressed and dented, body of the vehicle tilted from the right side to left side, roof frame pressed, bent and tilted, wind glass frame also pressed, dented and tilted and front bumper dented along with labour charges will certainly not come to Rs. 9,870/-. The vehicle has fallen into the deep gorge and the amount as mentioned in Column 11 of the second survey report as Rs. 35,400/- appears to be justified and the amount of Rs. 9,870/- finally assessed as loss by this Surveyor does not at all inspire any confidence. A perusal of the judgment and order of the District Forum goes to show that the complainant had submitted a copy of the repair estimate from Sahvir & Sons of Dehradoon on the basis of which the repairs were carried out and the amount of around Rs. 35,000/- was spent by the complainant on the repair of the damaged vehicle. Thus the complainant is entitled to claim the amount of Rs. 35,000/-.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned District Forum has decreed the claim for Rs. 66,000/- whereas the loss claimed was of Rs. 35,000/-. In our opinion the amount of Rs. 15,000/- claimed by the complainant for taking out the vehicle from the deep gorge is on the higher side. THE accident, no doubt took place in the high hills of Uttarkashi and the distance between the place of incident to Dehradoon would be around 200 kms. even then the charges for lifting the vehicle through the crane and transporting it to Dehradoon would be around Rs. 10,000/- and not Rs. 15,000/-. Although the plea of the appellant is that in such cases the amount given by the Insurance Company does not exceed Rs. 1,500/-. We do not accept the plea of the appellant on this point and allow an amount of Rs. 10,000/- instead of Rs. 15,000/- allowed by the District Forum. Since the complainant had already repaired the vehicle from his own resources, the business loss assessed by the District Forum was of Rs. 16,000/- which we consider is on the higher side. THE District Forum has already awarded interest at the rate of 12%. THErefore, against the business loss claimed of Rs. 16,000/- and also decreed by the District Forum the figure on the loss count should not have been more than Rs. 10,000/-. THE District Forum instead of taking these points into consideration decreed the entire claim as lodged by the complainant. In the circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 35,000/- on account of the repair of the vehicle, Rs. 10,000/- for lifting the vehicle and transporting it to Dohradun and Rs. 10,000/- as damages because of the business loss. Thus, in this way the total amount comes to Rs. 55,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% as awarded by the District Forum. THE interest awarded should be from three months after the date of accident because the processing of claim takes this much of time which the appellant failed to do. THErefore, the interest awarded will be applicable from 1.3.1999 and not from 1.12.1998. THE appeal is, therefore, liable to be allowed in part. ORDER THE appeal is partly allowed. THE appellant shall pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 35,000/- for the damages caused to the vehicle, Rs. 10,000/- for lifting the vehicle from the gorge and transporting it to Dehradun and a further amount of Rs. 10,000/- as business loss along with 12% interest with effect from 1.3.1999 till the date of payment. THE cost of Rs. 1,000/- awarded by the District Forum will remain intact. THE judgment and order of the District Consumer Forum is modified accordingly. THE appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as cost to the complainant. Let compliance of this order be made within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal partly allowed.