ORIENTAL INSURANCE Company Limited vs HUSNA BANO

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.1.2000 passed by District Consumer Forum, Jhansi in Complaint Case No. 56/1999.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the Truck No. MP 09 K 3108 was got insured by the complainant with Oriental Insurance Company Limited, opposite party/appellant for the period from 10.5.1996 to 9.5.1997. THE said truck met with an accident on 25.2.1997 in Kanpur. THE information was given to the Kanpur office of the Insurance Company on the next day. THE Insurance Company appointed Sri L.D. Jatariya, Surveyor who made a survey on the same day. After receipt of the report of the Surveyor, the complainant was asked by the Insurance Company to get the vehicle repaired. THE complainant submitted an estimate of Rs. 80,000/- to the Insurance Company and got the vehicle repaired at Kanpur. When the claim was not settled for more than a year and on 20.5.1998 the claim was repudiated on the ground that cash memos filed by the complainant were not found correct and the firms/shops which issued this cash memo was not found in existence. The Insurance Company in its written version, admitted the insurance and alleged that out of six bills filed by the complainant, only one shop issuing one bill was found in existence.

The parties filed evidence before the learned District Forum who after considering the case of the parties directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 13,445.00 only with 15% per annum interest from 26.5.1997 till the amount is paid. It also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as cost of the expenses.

AGGRIEVED against this order, the appellant, Insurance Company has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order of the learned District Forum. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the affidavit of the person who got the repairs done has not been filed. It has argued that only the affidavit of the complainant has been filed. He has further argued that the bills of Rs. 80,000/- which were filed were found forged as per report of the Surveyor. The Surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs. 13,445.00/-.

THE report of Shri L.D. Jatariya, Surveyor has been filed. Second Surveyor, Sri Neeraj Kapoor was also appointed by the Insurance Company. According to his report dated 9.6.1997 the loss was assessed at Rs. 13,445/-. Some of the bills which were submitted by the complainant were not signed hence the claim was not passed for the entire amount. A perusal of the judgment will go to show that in the report of Surveyor, the damage to the vehicle was found, therefore, it is proved that the damage was caused to the vehicle. THE learned District Forum has rightly rejected the contention of the Insurance Company that all the bills were found forged and inflated. THE learned District Forum has come to the conclusion that if some of the bills have been inflated then the entire claim cannot be repudiated. Keeping in view these facts, the learned District Forum has allowed the claim which the Surveyor has granted. We found that the finding of the learned District Forum are perfectly correct as they are based on the report of the Surveyor which was appointed by the Insurance Company itself. It has also granted compensation and cost of proceedings which we find that they are reasonable and justified on the facts of the case. THE appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed. ORDER THE appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000/-. THE judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. Let compliance of this order be made within a period of two months. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed.