Rahul Jaiswal vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd

PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER The present revision petition has been filed by Rahul Jaiswal (hereinafter referred as the "Petitioner") who was the original complainant before the District Forum being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission in favour of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Respondent").

THE facts of the case according to the Petitioner are that he had comprehensively insured a Bolero vehicle owned by him with the Respondent/Insurance Company on 28.11.2001 for an amount of Rs.4,51,000/- for a period of one year. On 01.01.2002, the said vehicle met with an accident near Civil Court, Ambikapur and the Respondent was informed about it on the same day. Respondent appointed a Surveyor to inspect the vehicle on-the-spot as well as a final Surveyor. Petitioner submitted all the relevant documents as asked for including the bills for repairing the vehicle etc. on 11.02.2002 and 14.05.2002 respectively. THE total cost of repairing the vehicle was Rs.46,669/-. Despite this, Respondent did not settle the claim. Petitioner, therefore, sent a legal notice on 04.04.2005 to which no response was received. Aggrieved by this, Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking compensation of Rs.46,669/- along with interest @ 18% and other reliefs. Respondent while admitting that the vehicle of the Petitioner was insured with it has stated that after intimation of the accident, a Surveyor was appointed who after an on-the-spot inspection assessed the loss at Rs.10,228/- which was confirmed by the final Surveyor. However, this amount could not be released because Petitioner did not comply with the request of the Respondent sent vide letters dated 07.02.2002, 30.01.2002 and 04.02.2002 to submit the bills, cash memos and police report. The claim was, therefore, closed on 28.03.2002 and thereafter it became time barred and, therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

The District Forum after hearing both parties and considering the evidence on record including the bills pertaining to repairs produced by the Petitioner, partly allowed the complaint and directed the Respondent to pay the Petitioner an amount of Rs.30,338/- towards loss suffered and Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost within 30 days from the date of order. In case the Respondent failed to pay the said amount, interest @ 9% per annum shall be applicable after the period of 30 days. The operative part of the order of the District Forum reads as follows: "Non-applicant has got his vehicle repaired from Star Automobiles and has also presented bills of payment which are at Exhibit-A/3(1) to A-3/(7). Exhibit A/4(1) contains details of damage to the vehicle and also the charges for spare parts including discount. Report of the Surveyor, Mr.R.K.Mishra is on record in which assessment of damage has been done and this report also states that the complainant has got the said vehicle repaired. Surveyor has mentioned Rs.40,211/- + Rs.3444 + Rs.656 + Rs.3300 and Rs.3500. According to the Surveyor, the estimate is of Rs.40,211/- though Complainant has given estimate of Rs.46,669/- along with bills. If the estimate/bills of the Complainant are depreciated it comes to Rs.40,000/- as against Rs.40211/- which is the estimate given by the Surveyor of the non-applicant. This estimate does not include spare parts and repair charges. If according to the Surveyor, depreciation is taken @ 50% and also the estimate of Rs.40,211/- even then the cost of spare parts works out to Rs.20,110/- and Rs.3,100/- is the assessment cost, Rs.3,300/- for labour charges and Rs.3,500/- for repairs charges. So the assessment of Rs.10,228/- has actually been estimated towards labour and repair charges. Cost of spare parts has not been included and therefore, the total cost would be Rs.20,110/- + 10,228/- which comes to Rs.30,338/- which has not been paid to the complainant by the non-applicant as per his entitlement."

AGGRIEVED by this order, both parties filed appeals before the State Commission. The appeal of the Petitioner was dismissed on grounds of delay. The State Commission, however, substantially allowed the appeal of the Respondent, inter alia, on the grounds that Respondent"s Surveyor who had specifically requested that he be allowed to inspect the various parts of the vehicle purported to be damaged at the time of repairs was deliberately not informed about the same and, therefore, the claims contained in the bills produced regarding the repairs could not be confirmed by the Surveyor who was not given an opportunity to inspect the damaged parts of the vehicle at the time of repairs. The State Commission further doubted the genuineness of the bills and related documents produced by the Petitioner on the grounds that repairs were conducted after 4 month and that also by a workshop that was located 300 Kms. away. However, State Commission also observed that since the Surveyor of the Respondent had assessed the initial loss of Rs.10,228/-, this amount should be paid by the Respondent to the Petitioner within three months of passing of the order failing which, Respondent will be liable to pay interest @ 9% from the date of default. Hence, the present revision petition. Counsel for both parties were present and made oral submissions. Counsel for Petitioner stated that the State Commission erred in accepting the appeal of the Respondent by wrongly concluding that the necessary documents supplied as proof of repairs to the Respondent were not adequate to settle the claims. All these were filed also before the District Forum which after assessing the evidence as well as the veracity of the receipts pertaining to repairs rightly allowed the Petitioner"s complaint. Therefore, there are no grounds to doubt the authenticity of these bills and the order of the State Commission granting only a minimal relief of Rs.10,228/- is unjustified.

COUNSEL for Respondent, on the other hand, reiterated that an on-the-spot inspection by the Surveyor clearly indicated that the damage to the vehicle was not as extensive as claimed by the Petitioner. If, this was so, then the Surveyor would have assessed the amount of damage to be higher than Rs.10,228/- right in the beginning. Also as stated earlier the Surveyor was never given an opportunity as requested for to inspect the damaged parts of the vehicle purported to have been repaired. Further, the unexplained delay in sending the vehicle for repairs after 4 months and at a workshop located 300 Kms. away makes the entire case of the Petitioner suspect. It also seems highly improbable that the Petitioner was able to drive the vehicle which required such extensive repairs as claimed by the Petitioner from Ambikapur to Satna without windscreen etc. Thus, it is clear that the Petitioner did not come with clean hands and presented bogus repair bills. Taking in view these facts, Respondent/Insurance Company was fully justified in not settling the claim based on false facts and documents. We have heard Counsel for both parties and have gone through the evidence on record. It is not in dispute that the accident had taken place to the Petitioner"s vehicle and the Respondent had appointed Surveyors to assess the loss. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was repaired on 16.05.2002 by Star Automobiles, Rewa Road, Satna which is almost 300 Kms. away. To a pointed question asked by us to Counsel for Petitioner to explain why the vehicle could not have been repaired earlier and in a workshop near the place of accident, Counsel for Petitioner was unable to give any convincing response. It is also clear from the evidence on file and not disputed that the Petitioner had not informed the Surveyor regarding the date of repairs of the vehicle to enable him to inspect its damaged parts for the purposes of assessment. The State Commission taking into note these important facts did not accept the veracity of the Petitioner"s claim and ordered relief of Rs.10,228/- which was the initial amount assessed by the Surveyor in respect of the damage to the vehicle during the on-the-spot inspection. We are in agreement with the findings of the State Commission in this connection which are based on convincing documentary and other evidence filed before it and which have been discussed in the foregoing paras. We, therefore, uphold the order of the State Commission. The Respondent is directed to pay the Petitioner Rs.10,228/- within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order failing which, Respondent will be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of default. The Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly with no orders as to costs.