P. Laxmi vs Branch Manager United Indian Insurance Company

THE petitioner who is the original complainant has filed this revision petition to challenge the order dated 25.02.2010 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad in F.A. No.749/2007. The OP, which is an insurance company, is the respondent herein.

THERE is a delay of 118 days in filing this revision petition for which the petitioner has filed an application for condonation. For the reasons stated in the application and the submissions made by learned Amicus, the delay in filing the revision petition is condoned. Briefly stated, the petitioner being the owner of the lorry bearing no. AP 31T 0599 insured it with the respondent company for the period from 17-11-1999 to 16-11-2000. This lorry met with an accident on 28.08.2000 in the outskirts of Sadasivpet town of Medak. The incident of accident to the lorry was reported to the Police Station on 28.08.2000 and was also intimated to the respondent company on telephone followed by written communication. Immediately, the OP sent a surveyor to conduct spot inspection. The surveyor took photographs of the damaged vehicle and asked the complainant to submit her claim for settlement. The complainant submitted her claim and asked permission of the surveyor for shifting his damaged vehicle to the workshop, which was granted. It is alleged that while shifting the damaged lorry by towing it by another lorry on 02.09.2000, somewhere on the way the link chain between two Lorries got broken which allegedly resulted in the second accident. It is stated that the said fact about the second incident was also intimated to the respondent company on telephone and the complainant also lodged the complaint before the police. One more surveyor came to be appointed who also conducted survey by taking photographs of the damaged vehicle along with estimate and original bills for the repairs done to the tune of Rs.1,22,190/-. The grievance of the complainant is that in spite of submission of the claim and notice to the insurance company, her claim was repudiated, which made her to file a consumer complaint against the OP insurance company praying for a direction to pay compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs towards repairs of the damaged vehicle along with interest @18% p.a. and Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and costs.

ON being noticed by the District Forum, Medak, the OP filed counter and while admitting the issuance of the insurance policy for the period in question to the vehicle and intimation about the accident on 28.08.2000, the insurance company denied the second accident or any intimation about it to the company or to their Divisional Office on 11.09.2000. The insurance company also submitted that the claim of the complainant for compensation was repudiated because she did not file copy of the police report and also when asked to submit the documents including the original bills, no such documents or the bills were sent by her. Denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP insurance company prayed for dismissal of the complaint. On appraisal of the evidence placed before it by the parties, the District forum by its majority opinion held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP insurance company and hence, dismissed the complaint.

AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid decision of the District Forum, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was partially allowed by the State Commission by its impugned order in terms of the following directions:- "In the result, the appeal is allowed partly, setting aside the order of the District Forum and as a consequence the complaint before the District Forum is allowed partly directing the opposite party insurance company to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.7,425/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of claim i.e. 11-9-2000 till the date of realization and proportionate costs in a sum of Rs.1,000/- within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. " Not satisfied with the partial relief granted by the State Commission vide its impugned order, the petitioner has filed this revision petition praying for setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for afresh appraisal in view of raising the various points by her in the revision petition.

WE have heard Ms.Surekha Raman, Amicus for the petitioner and Mr.Maiban N. Singh, Advocate for the respondent company.

TWO issues have arisen for our consideration and decision. The first issue is as to whether the second accident took place while towing the lorry on 02.09.2000 as alleged by the petitioner and secondly in the given facts and circumstances of this case any interference is called for with the impugned order giving partial relief to the petitioner. So far as the first issue is concerned, the State Commission has considered this aspect at great length in the impugned order based on the evidence before it and concluded that there was no second accident on 02.09.2000 as alleged by the petitioner. The State Commission has made following observations while rejecting the claim of the petitioner regarding occurrence of the second accident:- "The opposite party however stated that it was informed only about the first accident. As a matter of fact, this discrepancy is not of much significance as ultimately the claim was made in writing by the complainant on 11-9-2000. In the said claim form which was obviously subsequent to even the so called second accident, did not make a mention about the second accident. On the other hand, it specifically gave, while giving a short description and other details of the first accident the following account: ''While my vehicle was proceeding from Sangareddy to Tandur near at the accident spot while tried to overtaking a foregoing truck steered to right applied brakes. At that time in order to avoid a hit of opposite coming vehicle steered to left. Due to his my vehicle slipped and skidded and dashed the foregoing truck and again dashed a tree which was living on left of the road caused heavy damage. Estimate enclosed ''. No where in Ex.B2 do we find reference to the second accident. "

WE agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Incidentally, learned Amicus has admitted that there is no claim being pressed for the second accident to the vehicle. This leaves us with the second issue in respect of the adequacy or otherwise of the relief already granted by the State Commission through the impugned order. We may note that after going through the submissions and appreciating the evidence, the District Forum vide its majority opinion dismissed the complaint of the petitioner outright. The minority judgment however allowed compensation of Rs.73,000/- to be paid by the OP insurance company to the petitioner. After going through the preliminary report of the spot surveyor and the final report of the second surveyor which assessed the loss, the State Commission came to the conclusion that even though there was no cogent evidence to support the huge claim of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.2 Lakhs, the conclusion drawn by the second surveyor in his final report in respect of the entitlement of the petitioner to a net compensation of Rs.7,425/- should not have been ignored by the District Forum. In view of this, the State Commission has rightly set aside the order of the District Forum and given the aforesaid partial relief to the petitioner. Here again the State Commission has recorded reasons for its findings in respect of this partial relief and the same can be reproduced as under:- "It is no where stated in the complaint that she got effected the repairs and for getting the repairs she had spent so much money. This is exactly what is decisive of the claim as claim cannot be adjudicated on the basis of estimates. Estimates were only for the purpose of arriving at a figure tentatively. As a matter of fact, the surveyor proceeded to assess the damages at the workshop at Vijayawada carrying with him the estimate, Ex.B10 furnished by the complainant and had come to a firm conclusion that the complainant was entitled to a net amount of Rs.7,425/-. This is rather an amount admitted by the opposite party. The complainant totally failed to adduce cogent evidence to support her huge claim of Rs.2,00,000/-by failing to produce the original bills but at the same time pretending that she so produced without any acknowledgement to that effect nor any reference to such production in the relevant documents especially the claim form marked as Ex.B2. The complainant contended in para 6 of her complaint that she had submitted the original bills to the surveyor, V.V.S.Ram Prasad of Vijayawada appointed by the Divisional Office for conducting the survey of damaged vehicle and it is simply absurd that she could have submitted the original repairs for the repair done amounting to Rs.1,22,190/- as contended by her in the said para for the simple reason that Ex.B12, dated 20-4-2001, the report of Mr.V.V.S.Ram Prasad, specifically referred to his time of survey as having been carried on 12th 14th, 18th and 25th September by which time the vehicle was not at all subjected to repairs as is obvious from the fact that the complainant did not tender any evidence to that effect. Apart from all this, if really the complainant had spent so much money nothing prevented her from filing the affidavit of the person who effected the repairs at Vijayawada workshop and also file if necessary duplicate copies of the bills if really she had ever taken the original bills. Thus the amount claimed is totally unsubstantiated. Nevertheless as per Ex.B12, damage did occur and the damage was translated into monitory terms fixing it at Rs.7,425/-. The minority order of the District Forum rendered by the President quantified the relief at Rs.73,000/- comprising Rs.68,000/- plus Rs.5,000/- basing on his appraisal of the photographs. But this is very unscientific as the President himself stated that he worked it out by guess work. The total denial by the minority is also not acceptable. Thus the failure of the opposite party to offer relief in terms of Ex.B12 rather marks a certain amount of deficiency in service for which a suitable relief can be granted. In these circumstances, the complainant has to be granted a relief commensurate with the loss she sustained in the accident as established by the entirety of the evidence in the case. Going by such yardstick, the amount that she can be validly granted would boil down to an amount of Rs.7, 425/- as drawn from the only reliable document in this regard. Of-course the complainant is also entitled to the concomitant interest and the proportionate costs as well. "

ON perusal of the record including the reports of the spot surveyor as well as the second surveyor, we are of the considered opinion that the State Commission has given a fair and just finding in respect of the entitlement of the petitioner for the damage suffered by her vehicle. We do not see any reason to interfere with this finding of the State Commission. In view of the discussion above, there is no need to remand the matter. The impugned order having been passed on the evidence placed by the parties, the same is upheld. Consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.