NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs M.S. KOHLI

HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. R.K. Bashamboo, Advocate and perused the impugned judgment and order dated 7.5.2004 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Union Territory, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Fourm) in Complaint Case No. 112 of 2001.

THE sole grievance against the judgment and order of the District Froum is that the District Forum committed an error while allowing the complaint and directing the appellant to pay a further sum of Rs. 15,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of settlement of the claim i.e. 29.11.2000. Mr. R.K. Bashamboo, Advocate appearing for the appellant-New India Assurance Company Limited (for short hereinafter referred to as the Assurance Company) contended that as per the Condition No. IMT-75, mentioned in the policy of insurance, in a case of total loss, the claim is to be settled either at the insured estimated value (IEV) or the market value of the vehicle at the relevant time, whichever is less. Mr. R.K. Bhashamboo, Advocate further contended that the Surveyor reported in his report that the market value of the vehicle in question i.e. Maruti car, which was insured under the policy of insurance by the respondent/complainant was Rs. 1,60,000/- and the market value of the stereo installed in the car and also insured under the policy of insurance was Rs. 5,000/-. THE vehicle had been insured under the policy of insurance for a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- and the value of the stereo was shown as Rs. 5,000/-. The learned Counsel for the appellnat showed to us the copy of the report of the Surveyor, a perusal of which clearly shows that the Surveyor refered to the inquiry being made about the market value of the vehicle aforesaid from the agencies dealing with the sale and purchase of such cars and also assessed the market value from his own estimate. It is significant to note that the Surveyor did not disclose the names and other particulars of the persons dealing with the sale/purchase of motor vehicles from whom he made inquiries about the market value of the vehicle in question, which had been stolen and treated as a case of total loss. The affidavit, which was filed by the Surveyor by way of evidence, deposed about the correctness of the contents of the survey report and it did not on its own deposed any fact regarding the market value. The District Forum cited decisions of this Commission, Hon''ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and held that insured estimated value of insurance as disclosed in the policy of insurance was payable by the appellant Insurance Company to the respondent/complainant as against the claim already settled at Rs. 1,60,000/- besides payment of Rs. 5,000/- for stereo. There was thus difference of Rs. 15,000/- between the Estimated Value of insurance and the market value as reported by the Surveyor in its report.

In our considered opinion, the market value is to be assessed on the legally admissible evidence on facts and the same cannot be based no surmises and conjectures and on the bases of the estimation of the Surveyor himself and particularly when the Surveyor did not disclose about his own expertise in assessing the value of the motor vehicles. Thus, we find no infirmity in judgment and order of the District Forum as the District Forum has allowed the estimated value of insurance and according to us evidence regarding the market value of the vehicle in question was not proved by the appellant and the report of Surveyor in this regard is not at all worthy of reliance. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed in limine.

COPIES of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.