Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs PUKHRAJ BOTHRA

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 5.6.2003 in Complaint No. 271/02 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jagdalpur (hereinafter called the ''District Forum'' for short) directing the appellant/insurer to pay to the complainant/respondent a sum of Rs. 93,000/- being balance of cost of repairs of the vehicle of the complainant/respondent.

UNDISPUTABLY, complainant''s Maruti Esteem Car No. CG-05/2100 was comprehensively insured by the appellant for the period from 3.4.2001 to 2.4.2002. the said vehicle met with an accident on 10.1.2002 while going from Raipur to Jagdalpur. On receiving intimation of the accident, appellant insurer appointed Surveyor C.N. Sharma who in his report dated 11.3.2002 assessed the loss at Rs. 89,464/- and also stated that the salvage value was Rs. 2,000/-. It is also not in dispute that appellant insurer after consideration of the Surveyor''s report, paid a sum of Rs. 87,000/- to the complainant on 28.3.2002. The complainant/respondent did not feel satisfied with the amount of compensation and claimed that he had to incur actual expenses of Rs. 1,80,000/- towards repairs of the damaged vehicle. The complainant, therefore, requested the appellant/insurer by his letter dated 1.4.2002 to pay the said amount to him. The request as above was however, declined by the appellant/insurer. Hence the complaint before the District Forum.

The complainant''s claim was upheld by the impugned order. It was directed that appellant shall pay to the complainant/respondent a sum of Rs. 93,000/-, being the balance of the amount paid by the complainant for repairs of his vehicle. Interest @ 9% p.a. was also awarded on the said amount.

LEARNED Counsels for the parties were heard and record of the District Forum was perused. LEARNED Counsel for appellant/insurer strenuously urged that the Surveyor reported the extent of loss and accordingly an amount of Rs. 87,000/- in due deference to the said report was promptly paid by the appellant/insurer to the complainant/respondent on 28.3.2002. It was also submitted that the complainant had received the said amount in full and final satisfaction of his claim and, therefore, was not entitled to get any further amount. It was urged that District Forum erred in directing the appellant to pay to the complainant further sum of Rs. 93,000/- towards the repairs of his vehicle. Learned Counsel for complainant/respondent, however, submitted that the complainant''s vehicle was extensively damaged, as would be clear from the report of the Surveyor itself. It was further submitted that complainant got his car repaired from the authorised service station of Maruti Udyog Ltd. and had to incur an expenditure of Rs. 1,80,000/-. The bills obtained from the service station were submitted to the appellant but the appellant has failed to reimburse him the full expenses. It was also submitted that the complainant never accepted the amount paid by the appellant, in full and final satisfaction of his claim.

UNDISPUTABLY the vehicle of the complainant/respondent was damaged. It suffered extensive damage as would be clear from the details given in the survey report. It is also clear that though the complainant received the sum of Rs. 87,000/- on 28.3.2002 from the appellant insurer, he immediately thereafter sent a letter dated 1.4.2002 to the appellant insurer that he had to incur an expenditure of Rs. 1,80,000/- towards repairs of his car and has submitted the bills thereof from the authorised Maruti service station. He requested for settlement of his claim in accordance with the said bills. The conduct of the complainant/respondent clearly indicates that the amount of Rs. 87,000/- was not received by him in full and final satisfaction of his claim. In fact the receipt dated 28.3.2002 regarding payment of the said amount also does not indicate so. Therefore, the contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellant/insurer that amount as above was accepted by the complainant in full and final satisfaction of his claim and, therefore, he was not entitled to claim any further amount, cannot be accepted. As is clear from the material placed on record, the complainant had to incur an expenditure of Rs. 1,80,000/- and the same was paid by him to the authorised service station of Maruti Udyog Ltd. Hence, in view of the loss as above suffered by the complainant, he is entitled to full reimbursement, notwithstanding the Surveyor''s report of estimated loss of lesser amount. It is true that normally the estimate of the Surveyor regarding loss has to be given due consideration but it cannot be said to be the last word for determination of actual loss. As stated above, in the instant case the vehicle was got repaired by the complainant from the authorised service station of Maruti Udyog Ltd. and hence possibility of inflated claim by the complainant is almost ruled our. There is no allegation in that regard also. In view of the above, we consider the complainant/respondent is entitled to get reimbursement of actual expenditure incurred by him towards repairs of the damaged vehicle. The finding in that regard of the District Forum appears to be fully justified and is affirmed. There is no justification for interference in the impugned order. This appeal has no substance. It is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.