OM PRAKASH vs U P Avas Avam Vikas Parishad

BY this complaint, the complainant has prayed for payment of compensation for a sum of Rs.

,40,807/ - ALONGWITH interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till actual realisation of the amount. 2. The brief relevant facts for determining the point in controversy are that the complainant in the year 1989 purchased Padmini Car bearing Chassis No. PA 487913, Engine No. PAXF 78069, 1989 Model after raising loan from the Punjab National Bank, The Mall, Shimla. The vehicle was hypothecated to the loanee Bank. After the purchase of the vehicle and getting it registered vide Registration No. HPY -522, the complainant got it insured with the respondent No. 3, the Branch Manager of United India Insurance Company, Shimla, for a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/ - for a period of one year with effect from 30.3.89 to 29.3.90. On 21.12.89, when the policy, admittedly, was in force, the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident near Khalini, Shimla and was completely damaged. F.I.R. was lodged with the Police Station, Chhotta Shimla, and the insurance claim was preferred with the respondent (hereinafter to be referred to as the Insurance Company). According to the complainant, the Insurance Company first appointed one Shri Surinder Kumar, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who assessed the loss at Rs. 83,840/ - as total loss to the vehicle plus Rs. 6,000/ - as retrieving charges, which were paid by the complainant. This amount, however, was not accepted by the complainant on the ground that in case of total loss, only 10% of the insured amount was to be deducted in terms on the insurance policy. Thereafter, the Insurance Company appointed another Surveyor one Shri H.K. Chabra, who assessed the loss at Rs. 87,000/ - as total loss to the vehicle plus Rs. 6,000/ - as retrieving charges. It appears that the claim of the complainant has not been finally settled by the Insurance Company so far and hence the complainant has been forced to file the present complaint for awarding of compensation, the details of which are given in paragraph 12 of the complaint. It has not been disputed by the Insurance Company that the vehicle was insured with them for an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/ - and that the risk was covered during the relevant time when the vehicle met with an accident. The appointment of first Surveyor, namely; Shri Surinder Kumar who assessed the loss at Rs. 83,840/ - has not been disputed. However, according to the Insurance Company, there were complaints received by the Vigilance Department of the Company against the Surveyor and, therefore, another Surveyor, namely Shri K.C. Gupta was appointed who assessed the loss at Rs. 39,000/ - vide his report, Annexure R -l. However, in the reply nothing has been stated about the appointment of second Surveyor, namely Shri H.K. Chabra. The Insurance Company, it appears, was prepared to settle the amount of Rs. 39,000/ - on the basis of the report of the Surveyor, Annexure R -l.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

WE have noticed that the accident took place on 21.12.89 and the loss, admittedly, was assessed immediately thereafter by the Surveyor Shri Surinder Kumar, the first Surveyor at Rs. 83,840/ - on total loss basis plus Rs. 6.000/ - as retrieving charges. According to the Insurance Company, as stated earlier, there were complaints with the Vigilance Department of the Company about the assessment of loss by this Surveyor. However, no material has been placed on the record by the Insurance Company to show that there were complaints of the Vigilance Department. The second Surveyor Mr. H.K. Chabra has also based his report on total loss basis. However, there is no cogent material on record to support the assessment of the said Surveyor, who is alleged to have assessed the loss at Rs. 87,000/ - as total loss plus Rs. 6,000/ - as retrieving charges.

NO doubt Mr. K.C. Gupta, the Surveyor after inspection has given his report, Annexure R -l and that his report is of much later dated i.e., after a lapse of about 18 months from the date of occurrence of accident. Mr. Gupta, the Surveyor has made the assessment of the loss on the basis of Cash Down Assessment and according to him, the vehicle could have been repaired and the liability of insurance should have been determined accordingly and in such circumstances, the liability of the Insurance Company should be settled on Cash Down Assessment, which he has assessed at Rs. 39,000/ -.

THIS report cannot be accepted as this report has been given after 18 months of the accident and, therefore, proper assessment after a lapse of so much period, cannot be made. Even otherwise, the first two Surveyors, namely Shri Surinder Kumar and Shri H.K. Chabra, both have found the vehicle totally damaged and assessed the amount on total loss basis. There was no reason from deviating from the finding given by the earlier two Surveyors that the vehicle has been damaged and the assessment is required to be made on total loss basis. We could have examined the report given by Mr. Gupta, Annexure R1, in depth provided the reports of other two Surveyors has been placed on record by the Insurance Company, which in fact have not been placed on record. So, we are unable to appreciate this report and the report, is, therefore, rejected. Having regard to overall circumstances, we are of the opinion that the assessment report of Shri Surinder Kumar, the first Surveyor should be accepted as it was given immediately after the accident and the loss caused to the vehicle should be settled at Rs. 83,840/ - and the Insurance Company is required to indemnify the complainant for the said loss.

IN the light of foregoing, we direct the Insurance Company (opposite party) to pay an amount of Rs. 83,840/ - alongwith interest @ 18% per annum with effect from 4.7.91 i.e., from the date of filing the complaint till actual payment. The costs of Rs. 500/ - shall also be paid by the Insurance Company to the complainant.

SINCE the vehicle was hypothecated with the Punjab National Bank and the policy was also taken by the Bank for the complainant, the amount awarded shall be paid by the Insurance Company to the Bank and after adjustment of the amount against loan of the complainant, if balance amount is found due to the complainant, that shall be immediately paid by the Insurance Company to the complainant. Complaint allowed with costs.