ORIENTAL INSURANCE Company Limited vs UDAYANATH PADHI

BEING felt aggrieved by the order of the Ganjam District Forum dated 19.12.2003, the Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Berhampur has filed this appeal. By the said order the appellant has been directed to pay Rs. 3,26,415 with 12 per cent interest from 30.3.2001 (date of filing of the complaint) to the respondent.

THE respondent filed the complaint against the appellant alleging deficiency in service for non-settlement of his claim. His case is that he is the registered owner of a public carrier bus bearing registration number OAG-4321. He got insured with the appellant for Rs. 4,00,000 on payment of premium of Rs. 11,619. THE Insurance Policy was valid from 28.1.2000 to 27.1.2001. During the subsistence of the policy i.e., on 25.7.2000 at about 6.30 p.m. while the bus was proceeding towards Kamasaragada from Berhampur near Jagannathprasad College the tie, rod slipped due to which it went out of control of the driver. As a result, it dragged itself to extrme left and dashed against a mango tree causing extensive damage. Soon after the accident the driver reported the matter to Jagannathprasad police out-post. THE respondent also reported about the accident to the appellant requesting for appointment of a Surveyor to investigate and assess the loss. THE appellant appointed S.K. Mohanty, Surveyor and Loss Assessor who visited the spot, took photographs of the damaged bus and submitted his report. THE respondent submitted the loss estimate supported by vouchers to the appellant for rupees 3,83,850 for reimbursement. After some days the appellant appointed another Surveyor who also took photographs of repaired vehicle during his visit. Subsequently the appellant asked the respondent to present himself with relevant papers at Berhampur office for settlement of the claim. On the scheduled date the respondent appeared before the appellant and produced all documents in support of his claim. THE appellant however failed to discharge his obligation to settle the claims. As such the respondent was compelled to file the complaint. THE appellant in his written version admitted about the accdident. His case is that before any decision was communicated the respondent hurriedly filed the complaint and therefore, no deficiency in service can be attributed to him. There is no dispute that during the subsistance of the policy the vehicle met with an accident. On being informed the appellant appointed first Surveyor who visited the spot on 26.7.2000 and submitted his report indicating inter alia as follows : "(i) The damages which are only considered by the undersigned in the assessment were found to be fresh and consistent with the nature of accident as reported. (ii) The xerox copies of the R.C. Book, Fitness certification, Tax particulars, Driving licence, Insurance policy particulars, Route permit and police certificate have been produced for our verification. So the same should be verified at your and in original before the final settlement of the captioned claim. (iii) The salvages are either to be collected from the insured or Rs. 695.00 may be deducted from the final assessed amount. (iv) As per advice of the underwriting office as well as with the prior telephonic information of the insured, the undersigned had carried out the re-inspection survey of the captioned vehicle after completion of repairing work in all respect and prior to leaving the workshop for the road. It may be noted that he has not assessed the damage caused to the vehicle. Subsequently the appellant appointed another investigator K.B. Vohra a retired IPS officer to investigate the matter. He also submitted his report. Thereafter the appellant appointed final Surveyor S.C. Senapati on 4.10.2000 to assess the loss after making survey of the vehicle. He submitted the report on 22.2.2001. He stated in his report as follows : "During our inspection it was observed that the vehicle was thoroughly repaired and all the spare parts were duly replaced as recommended by the undersigned. The vehicle was put to trial and found its road worthy condition. We took the photographs of the repaired vehicle along with the salvages which are enclosed to our report for your reference and records. However, it was observed that the captioned vehicle was renewed with renovation including fitting of window glasses in place of canvas clothes which was fitted earlier or prior to the incident. The salvages are the property of the insurer, hence the salvages should be collected or adjusted as desired. The requisite documents produced by the insured for our verification have already been mentioned in the final survey report."

It is on record that the respondent submitted bills for Rs. 3,28,610. According to him he incurred the said amount to get the vehicle repaired. The appellant however minimised the claim to Rs. 25,500.

THE District Forum found that the repeated appointments of Surveyors is to obtain a favourable order for the Insurance Company. It found that from the total amount of Rs. 3,28,610 as claimed by the respondent a sum of rupees 2,195 is to be deducted towards salvage and by deducting the said amount it held that the respondent is entitled to Rs. 3,26,415. Mr. Mohanty, Counsel for the appellant contended that the vehicle in question was an old one and, therefore, the claim was rightly settled for Rs. 25,500. We do not find any valid reason to accept the above contention. If the vehicle was an old one the appellant should not have insured it for Rs. 4,00,000. It did so obviously to get higher premium. After having insured the vehicle for Rs. 4,00,000 there is no justification for the appellant to say that only paltry amount of Rs. 25,500 is payable towards damages.

WE also do not appreciate the appellant''s conduct in appointing Surveyors one after another. It did so obviously to get a favourable report. Therefore assessments made by the Surveyors have rightly been rejected by the District Forum. It is on record that the respondent had incurred a sum of Rs. 3,28,610 for getting the vehicle repaired. The claim is supported by documents. There is no reason as to why we should not accept them. As mentioned above, from the said amount Rs. 2,195 was deducted by the District Forum towards salvage. In view of what has been stated above, the order of the District Forum declaring the respondent''s entitlement to Rs. 3,26,415 cannot be faulted with. The grant of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 30.3.2001 (date of filing of the complaint) appears to be excessive. We accordingly reduce it to 9 per cent per annum. In the result, the order of the District Forum directing the appellant to pay to the respondent a sum of 3,26,415 is hereby confirmed. The respondent however is entitled to get interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from 30.3.2001. The appellant is directed to comply this order by 30th of July, 2006, failing which interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum is leviable.

WITH the aforesaid modification of the impugned order, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Mr. Subash Mahtab, Member-I agree. Appeal dismissed.