ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs MEHAR CHAND

HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

DELAY of 13 days is condoned.

THE vehicle belonging to the complainant/respondent was insured for a sum of Rs. 4,50,000. The year of manufacture of the vehicle is 2001 and it met with an accident on 9.7.2003 during the currency of the insurance. The Insurance Company had appointed a Surveyor and on the basis of the Surveyor''s Report, the Insurance Company approved claim for Rs. 94,651. The complainant did not accept the same and filed a complaint before the District Forum claiming a sum of Rs. 3,20,000 with 18% interest thereon as also compensation of Rs. 15,000 with costs. The District Forum after placing reliance on the consent letter, Annexure 3 as also the estimate prepared by the Surveyor granted compensation of Rs. 98,204.34 with 9% interest thereon from the date of filing of the complaint till realization as also cost of Rs. 2,500. The complainant filed an appeal for enhancement of the amount. The State Commission awarded compensation of Rs. 2,20,669.71. The order relating to payment of interest and costs was upheld. This order is subject matter of challenge in this revision.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that the order of the State Commission cannot be sustained since the same was passed overlooking the consent letter of the complainant as also assessment made by the Surveyor which is to be accepted. Admittedly, the vehicle in question had suffered extensive damages as pointed out by both the Fora below. The estimated cost by the authorized garage where the vehicle was taken at the instance of the petitioner was to the tune of Rs. 2,45,188.56. However, the Surveyor had made inquiries with different workshops and reduced the estimate. The complainant claims that he had spent a sum of Rs. 3,31,500 towards repairs as well as towing charges. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the authorized garages normally give inflated estimate, which is required to be pruned in order to come to the actual damages. We cannot accept this submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner because if the authorized garage gives inflated estimate, the Insurance Company should change the authorized garage and take on their panel such garages, which give the correct estimate of damages. Be that as it may, the Surveyor is required not only to examine the estimate given but also to give sound and cogent reasons as to why the estimates should not be accepted. No reasons whatsoever have been given in Annexure A'' of the surveyors report, to which our attention was drawn. In fact, the State Commission had come to the conclusion that no reasons had been given by the Surveyor for not accepting the estimate submitted by the complainant and that the Surveyors being expert in the field are required to give reasons for disallowing or partly disallowing the estimate claim given by the complainant. Reliance was also placed by the State Commission on the judgment of this Commission in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dr. Dharam Pal Sharma, R.P. No. 477 of 2009, which was decided on 27.2.2009 and particularly to the following observations therein: "Examination of the report of the Surveyor shows that he had allowed compensation for some of the components, which had been damaged by refused compensation for certain other parts. No reasons have been recorded by the Surveyor for not awarding the compensation for some of the parts, which had been damaged. Surveyor has not given any reasons for assessing the loss at Rs. 55,848.30 from the estimated cost of Rs. 1,07,321.50. On ad hoc basis he has reduced the loss."

THE State Commission has also dealt with the plea of the petitioner relating to the consent letter. The consent letter is not only undated but it appears to have been taken as a matter of routine for unilateral settlement of the claims. Ultimately, the complainant has not accepted the amount worked out by the Surveyor and he did not sign any discharge voucher. The consent given on the basis of report of Surveyor which does not give any reason whatsoever for disallowing the estimated claim given by the authorized garage is in fact no consent in the facts and circumstances of the case. The State Commission has allowed 10% depreciation on the estimated amount and ordered payment of Rs. 2,20,669.71. The order of the State Commission, in our opinion, is not only based on material on record, but it is a well -reasoned order which, does not call for any interference whatsoever in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.