ORIENTAL INSURANCE Company Limited vs HEM NARAIN MISRA

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.5.1992 passed by District Consumer Forum, Deoria in Complaint Case No. 53/1991.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant has filed the complaint for recovery of Rs. 13,592/- as damages alongwith 18% per annum interest. According to the complainant, he got his Jeep No. UGM 7873 insured with Oriental Insurance Company, the opposite party. THE policy was to started from 31.3.1989 to 30.3.1990. THE said vehicle met with an accident on 23.5.1989. THE information of the same was conveyed to the Insurance Company. A claim of Rs. 13,592/- was made to the Insurance Company on the basis of repairs. All the receipts of repairs were handed over to the Insurance Company but the Insurance Company has not paid the amount so far. The Insurance Company in its written version has admitted the insurance and about the factum of accident. It is further alleged that after seeing the policy and the registration certificate, it came to the notice that the engine was of 30 horse power while the insurance was got done for 20 horse power as told by the complainant. This was done in order to save the premium amount. As there is a violation of the terms of the policy, therefore, the claim could not be settled. In such cases three times of the premium which is usual has to be paid and only thereafter the claim can be settled. The complainant is not entitled to the amount claimed.

The learned District Forum, after considering the case of the parties, came to the conclusion that there is a deficiency of service on behalf of the Insurance Company. It allowed claim of Rs. 13,592/- alongwith 12% per annum interest against the Insurance Company. It also awarded a sum of Rs. 500/- as cost.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum, the Insurance Company has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that according to registration certificate, the capacity of the engine was 30 horse power while the complainant at the time of insurance disclosed the same as 20 horse power. This fact is admitted that the capacity of the engine is of 30 horse power. This fact is apparent from the copy of the registration certificate which is on record. Moreover, the vehicle has been got insured in the next year for 30 horse power engine capacity. According to learned Counsel there is a difference of premium if the capacity of the engine was 20 horse power or 30 horse power. The appellant has not been able to show by any document on record that the amount of premium will vary if the capacity of the engine is 30 horse power. This fact is belied from the copies of the cover note of the two policies. The first policy starts from 31.3.1989 to 30.3.1990. The capacity of the engine is shown as 20 horse power. The amount of premium charged is Rs. 3,598/-. The next cover note is dated 30.3.1990 for a period of one year. In this the capacity of the engine is shown as 30 horse power and the amount of premium paid is Rs. 3,598/-. In the next year the policy was got done from the National Insurance Company Limited while in the year in dispute the insurance was got done from Oriental Insurance Company. Thus we find that the premium for both 20 horse power engine and 30 horse power engine capacity is the same. The rate of premium is the same for all the four Insurance Companies. Therefore, this argument of the learned Counsel does not carry weight.

THE next argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that on 21.2.1991 a letter was issued by the Insurance Company to the complainant asking for the papers. THE papers were not provided and hence the claim could not be settled, and the complainant straight away filed this complaint. According to the complainant he has submitted the entire papers to the Surveyor with regard to the repair of the vehicle. THE complainant filed photostat copy of a bill dated 23.7.1989 for a sum of Rs. 13,592/-. He has also filed copies of some other estimates. A copy of letter dated 22.1.1991, a reference of which has been made by the learned Counsel for appellant during the course of argument, is on record. This letter shows that the copies of two documents, namely driving licence in original and registration book were demanded from the complainant by the Insurance Company so that the claim could be settled. In this letter there is no mention that all the papers regarding repairs of the vehicle has not been submitted by the complainant to the Insurance Company and they should be submitted. THErefore, the argument of the learned Counsel that by this letter the repair bills were asked for from the complainant cannot be accepted. No other document except the two mentioned above have been asked for by the Insurance Company. The report of the Surveyor dated 20.9.1989 is on record. A perusal of the same goes to show that Surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs. 5,341/- only. The Surveyor in its report has nowhere mentioned that all the bills of repairs were not submitted by the complainant to him. The cause and nature of accident has been given in the survey report and thereafter he has given the damages which have been incurred by the vehicle. Then he has given the cost amount of new parts and about the labour charges. He has deducted 50% depreciation on rubber parts and 25% depreciation on other items like head light, back mirror, wiper arm and blade, hood structure pipe, left long chamber etc. In this way he has given a claim of Rs. 791/- for new parts. In labour charges he has allowed only a sum of Rs. 4,500/-. After totalling both these amounts he has come to the amount of Rs. 5,341/-. The salvage value has been shown as Rs. 50/-. He has mentioned in his report that the original estimate about the new parts and labour charges was for Rs. 13,592/-. In his report the Surveyor has not mentioned as to why he has not allowed the entire amount of new parts after depreciation to the complainant and the labour charges mentioned by him in the repair bill dated 23.1.1989. Therefore, the estimates given by the Surveyor cannot be accepted because he has not given item-wise price and the labour charges which the complainant has claimed from the Insurance Company. If the Surveyor has felt that the charges claimed by the complainant are on the higher side, then he should have dealt with each and every item separately after attaching estimated bills from some repairers. He has given his own estimates without attaching any proof of the same. Therefore, in view of these facts the judgment and order passed by the learned District Forum is correct and no interference is required in the estimate arrived at by the District Forum. Thus we find that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Order The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. Let compliance of this order be made within a period of two months from the date of this order. Copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed.