NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs VINAY KUMAR PANDY

The complainant / respondent purchased Tata vehicle bearing no. UP-60D-1951 and got the said vehicle insured with the petitioner company for the period from 01.05.2006 to 03.04.2007 for an amount of Rs. 249349/-. The aforesaid vehicle met with an accident in the night of 21.12.2006 and was allegedly got repaired by the complainant incurring expenditure to the extent of Rs. 269211/- however, the claim was sanctioned by the petitioner company only for Rs. 108805/-. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned district forum by way of a complaint seeking payment of the balance amount of Rs. 190195/- alongwith damages, compensation and a sum of Rs. 6,000/- for shifting the accidental vehicle from the place of accident to the work shop in Balia.

The complaint was resisted by the insurance company primarily on the ground that the Inquiry Officer / examiner had estimated the cost of repairing the vehicle at Rs. 115305/- and based upon the said inspection a sum of Rs. 108805/- was paid to the complainant.

Vide its order dated 03.06.2008, the district forum directed the insurance company to pay the balance amount to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs. 2000/-.

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the district forum, the insurance company approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide order dated 29.05.2013, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the insurance company. Being aggrieved, the said company filed revision petition before this commission. Vide order dated 29.05.2014, this commission directed the State Commission to pass a fresh order after hearing both the parties. In compliance of the said order, the State Commission passed a fresh order dated 10.07.2014, again dismissing the appeal filed by the insurance company. Being aggrieved the said company is before us by way of this revision petition.

A perusal of the inspection report dated 23.03.2007 submitted by Vijay & Company, investigators and Valuers appointed by the Insurance company would show that when the said surveyor visited the workshop of M/s Subhash Motors, Gorakhpur for survey, the complainant informed him that the vehicle had been shifted from the aforesaid workshop to M/s Mallu Denter, T.P. Nagar, Gorakhpur. Thereupon, the surveyor visited the workshop of Mallu Denter and inspected the vehicle there on 22.02.2007 and 26.02.2007, when it was already in dismantled condition. We also find from a perusal of the said inspection report that dated 23.03.2007 that after assessing the cost of the parts at Rs. 1115240/- the surveyor deducted a sum of Rs. 6825/- towards depreciation @ 25% on item no. 2 to 52 and 50% on item no. 53 to 90, thereby arriving at a resultant figure of Rs. 99723/- in respect of the parts. He also allowed Rs. 31500/- towards labour charges and Rs. 1500/- towards spot labour and towing charges. The aforesaid surveyor assessed the net loss to the complainant at Rs. 115305/-.

A second surveyor Mr. Sunil Kumar Chaudhary was then appointed by the insurance Company for conducting final survey of the vehicle and assess the loss. He however, did not recommend any modification in the assessment made by the first surveyor. It would be pertinent to note here that the second surveyor inspected the vehicle after it had been repaired.

Ordinarily, the report submitted by a qualified surveyor needs to be accepted by a consumer forum unless the same is shown to be arbitrary or irrational. The report of a surveyor appointed by the insurance company must necessarily be preferred over a report obtained by the insured from a private surveyor since the inspection and assessment by the private surveyor is not carried out with the consent of or after notice to the insurance company. If the report submitted by the surveyor appointed by the insurance company is not shown to be arbitrary, unreasonable or unfair but, the insured is still aggrieved from the quantum of damaged assessed by him, it is always open to him to approach a Civil court to prove that the actual cost of repair and replacement of the damaged parts of the vehicle is more than what is assessed by the said surveyor. But, a consumer forum, following a summary procedure for deciding the complaints filed before it cannot be expected to go into the questions as to what the market price of a particular component of the vehicle would be and what would be the fair cost of the repair required by the vehicle, since adjudication on such disputed question of facts would require recording of voluminous evidence in the form of the deposition of the motor part dealers alongwith the price list of the parts which require replacement and deposition of the workshop owners who are engaged in the business of repairing the accidental vehicles. In any case no evidence was led by the complainant, before the district forum, to prove that the market value of the damaged parts was more than what was assessed by the surveyor M/s Vijay & Company. Similarly, no evidence was led by the complainant to prove that the labour charges prevailing in the market for repair of his accidental vehicle were more than what was assessed by the surveyor appointed by the insurance company. There is no indication in the order of the District Forum that any motor part dealer of the owner of a workshop was produced by the complainant to prove that the market value of the parts requiring replacement was more than what was assessed by the surveyor appointed by the insurance company or that the cost of repair of the accidental vehicle was more than what was assessed by the said surveyor. In these circumstances, the District Forum and the State Commission, in our opinion were not justified in preferring the estimate prepared by a private surveyor engaged by the complainant over the estimate submitted by the surveyor appointed by the insurance company. However, we are unable to appreciate how the insurance company approved the claim only for Rs. 108805/- despite its surveyor having assessed the loss at Rs. 115305/-. The reply filed by the Insurance Company does not contain any explanation for the difference between the compensation recommended by its surveyor and the compensation actually approved by it.

For the reasons stated herein above, the impugned orders are set aside and the complaint is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner company to pay an amount of Rs. 6500/- to the complainant alongwith interest on that amount @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.