RAKESH GOODS TRANSPORT CO. vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

THIS appeal by the complainant is directed against the order dated 3.1.1995 whereby the District Forum, Jodhpur dismissed the appellant''s Complaint No. 422 of 1994 mainly on the ground that since the dispute between the parties involved complex and complicated questions of law and fact, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to decide such dispute. The relevant facts are these.

APPELLANT''s Truck No. RJ 19G-0395 was insured with the respondent Insurance Company for the period from 5.8.1992 to 4.8.1993. The said vehicle got damaged in the night of 6.2.1993 when it was in parking condition and the other vehicle had dashed against it. The appellant duly informed the respondent Company of the accident and the damage caused to the vehicle and requested them to get the same surveyed and loss assessed at an early date. The respondent Company appointed their Surveyors Shri O.P. Sharda and thereafter Shri S.K. Mehta who inspected the damaged vehicle and found the same grossly damaged. The bonnet, bumper, cabin, lining, wiring etc. had been badly damaged. The bonnet of the vehicle was made of fibre glass and could not have been repaired. The respondent Company thereupon required the appellant to contact their authorised dealer M/s. Rahul Motors but M/s. Rahul Motors were unable to provide bonnet made of fibre glass or of steel. Therefore, the appellant had got the bonnet made from M/s. Jagdamba Body Repairs for Rs. 38,350/-. Before doing that the appellant had obtained the estimate of the bonnet (to be made from other place), from M/s. Rajesh Motors, it was the changed name of Rahul Motors, the authorised agent of the respondent Company. Anyway, the appellant spent a sum of Rs. 3,200/- on getting the cabin repaired from Anna Ram Body Works and Rs. 4,658/- on other repairs. The appellant submitted his claim to the respondent Insurance Company but they simply offered a sum of Rs. 8,000/- to him vide their letter dated 23.11.1993 which the appellant declined to accept. The respondent Insurance Company allegedly required him to contact them in their office and when the appellant repeatedly contacted them in their office and declined to accept the aforesaid amount, the Insurance Company appointed other Surveyors who reported that the claim of the appellant was not bona fide and correct. The appellant thereupon filed the complaint claiming Rs. 46,208/- on account of expenditure incurred by him on repairs of the bonnet, Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony totalling Rs. 51,208/- with interest. The defence of the respondent Insurance Company was that their Surveyors S/Shri O.P. Sharda and S.M. Mehta had reported that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to 6,000/- only was payable to the appellant towards the damage caused to the insured vehicle. It was further submitted that accepting the report of Shri S.M. Mehta, the Surveyor and Loss Assessor, dated 22.3.1993, they had offered a total sum of Rs. 8,000/- to the appellant towards full and final settlement of his claim but the same was not accepted by the appellant. But when the appellant again asked them to reconsider the quantum of compensation payable to him, they appointed Shri Ashok Kumar Soni and Shri L.S. Sankhla to enquire into the matter as to how the appellant had got the bonnet replaced from M/s. Jagdamba Body Repairs without prior permission of the respondent Company S/Shri Ashok Kumar Soni and Shri L.S. Sankhla reported that M/s. Jagdamba Body Repairs did not at all repair the damaged vehicle and that the bill filed by the appellant was not issued by M/s. Jagdamba Body Repairs, the claim of the appellant was finally repudiated as stated earlier, the District Forum accepted the version as given by the respondent Company and dismissed the complaint of the appellant.

The learned Counsel for the appellant took us through the pleadings of the parties, the affidavits filed by them and their witnesses, the reports of the Surveyors prepared from time to time, the bills of repairers issued by the repairers and vehemently urged that the District Forum had not appreciated the evidence on record in right perspective. It was submitted that the thrust of the District Forum has been that the applicant had got the bonnet replaced/repaired from M/s. Jagdamba Body Repairs without prior permission of the respondent Company. It was submitted that there was ample evidence on the record to prove that the appellant had suffered huge loss and that he had got the vehicle repaired at the cost which he had claimed. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent Company relied upon the impugned order and submitted that since the claim was repudiated in good faith and that the case involved complex and complicated questions of law and fact, the District Forum was right in dismissing the complaint on such ground.

AFTER having considered the rival statements and on study of the material, our attention was invited to. We are left in no doubt that the District Forum has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record and, therefore, the impugned order is required to be set aside. It is not in dispute in the present case that the insured vehicle of the appellant had met with an accident during the currency of the insurance policy. Again, it is also not in dispute that the appellant had informed the respondent Company of the accident and damage caused to the vehicle as promptly as possible and thereupon the respondent Company had appointed their Surveyors S/shri O.P. Sharda and S.M. Mehta. In para No. 3 of their written reply, it is respondent''s own case that Shri O.P. Sharda was the first appointed Surveyor (for spot inspection) and thereafter Shri S.M. Mehta was appointed as final Surveyor and Loss Assessor. In his report dated 22.3.1993 Shri S.M. Mehta has stated that Shri Sharda''s report No. 3147 dated 22.2.1993 was received by him on 15.3.1993 and that the particulars of damaged parts of the accidented vehicle, as were mentioned by Shri Sharda in his report, were found correct. It is also reported by Shri Mehta that he had inspected the vehicle at the workshop of M/s. Anna Ram Body Works and that damages, as observed before and after dismantling and detailed checking of the complainant''s vehicle, were as under : A. Cowl Assly. Fibre glass bonnet - Rt. side torn unrepairable, to be replaced. B. Cabin RH piller, glass, air-window damaged body, Gate frame damaged, M.S. Sheet wrinkled, Gate Winges bent. Spares Fr. RH Wheel stud sheared, reported by spot Surveyor but not claimed by claimant.

IN para 10 of his report, Shri Mehta further reported that the insured had submitted the estimate of the damage from M/s. Anna Ram Body Works and M/s. Rahul Motors and such estimate amounted to Rs. 51,044/-. Shri Mehta had then assessed the loss at Rs. 42,428/- with regard to Bonnet Assly only, disallowing totally the claimed damages in respect of H. Light Assly. (Rs. 842/-) side light (Rs. 258/-) and Bumper (Rs. 1,966/-). He had disallowed Rs. 21,214/- on account of depreciation @ 50% and Rs. 1,500/- on account of policy clause and after adding Rs. 2,000/- (instead of Rs. 3,200/- claimed for cabin repair) arrived at the figure of Rs. 21,714/- as assessed loss. Salvage was valued at Rs. 500/- only. It is evident from the report of Shri Mehta that he had estimated the cost of replacement of the bonnet at Rs. 42,428/-. Incidentally this was the cost of bonnet as given by M/s. Rahul Motors, Authorised Dealer of Ashoka Layland Vehicles at Jodhpur, on 8.2.1993. M/s. Rahul Motors had further given the rates for the damaged H.L. Assembly, side lights, bumpers at Rs. 842/-, Rs. 258/- and Rs. 1,966/- respectively and further estimated the labour charges at Rs. 2,350/-. That comes to Rs. 53,249/-. Curiously enough Mr. Mehta disallowed not only Rs. 21,214/- out of the cost of the Fibre Bonnet on account of 50 per cent depreciation and the remaining claim including labour charges without any reasons whatsoever. Mr. Mehta''s report is required to be appreciated from another angle also. Mr. Mehta was again required to estimate the cost of the bonnet, which was replaced by the appellant and this time i.e. on 13.9.1993 Mr. Mehta estimated the cost of locally fabricated bonnet at Rs. 4,000/- and disallowed depreciation of Rs. 600/- therefrom at the rate of 15 per cent and again a sum of Rs. 400/- on account of salvage and thus recommended a payment of Rs. 3,000/- in that respect. It was really a unique method of estimating the cost of a replaced spare parts. But this time Shri Mehta choose to allow labour charges at Rs. 2,500/- and mounting, fitting and aligning the bonnet assembly on cowl expenses at Rs. 500/-. Such expenses had not been allowed by him in his earlier report dated 22.3.1993. In both of his reports Mr. Mehta did not forget to mention that his term of engagement with the respondent Company was going to expire on 10.5.1994.

IN the same continuation it may be mentioned that prior to calling the second report from Mr. Mehta the respondent had called for a similar report from another Surveyor Shri Raj Kumar Pitti who had estimated the cost of locally fabricated centre bonnet around Rs. 5,500/- and after deducting some expenses (Depreciation at the rate of 15 per cent and Policy Clause) and allowing cost of repairs at Rs. 2,000/- had recommended, vide his report dated 1.9.1993, payment of Rs. 5,175/- in all to the appellant. He however, disallowed loss to bonnet side parts i.e. RH and LH Bonnet Parts on the ground that those were not covered by the policy. No such policy has been placed on record by the appellant. Even still earlier to Mr. Pitti''s report dated 1.9.1993, the respondent had called for a report from another Surveyor Shri Jeetender Singh who had in his undated report, stated that he had re-inspected the vehicle in question on 11.3.1993 and found that the vehicle was got repaired, as was allowed to be done by Mr. Mehta, but a locally fabricated bonnet made of sheet metal was replaced for the fibre glass bonnet.

IT may thus be seen that the respondent Company had appointed Surveyors after Surveyors to assess the loss caused to the vehicle and to verify the repairs carried out by the appellant. But curiously enough the respondent Company did not like to provide the report of the first spot Surveyor Shri O.P. Sharda and the photographs of the damaged vehicle to know the exact extent and nature of the loss/damage caused to the vehicle. Even the policy in question was not produced by them so as to verify the justification of excluding the repairs of side parts of the bonnet as claimed by Shri Pitti. Be that as it may, it is also not understandable as to why the respondent opted to make an offer of Rs. 8,000/- towards full and final settlement of the claim of the appellant, while Shri Mehta had recommended payment of Rs. 6,000/- and Shri Pitti at Rs. 5,175/- only in that respect. And when the appellant declined to accept the said offer and requested for reconsideration of his claim in view of the expenditure incurred by him and the expenditure was fully supported by bills/cash memos issued by the concerned parties, how was it that the authorities concerned in the administrative set up of the respondent came to repudiate his claim on the ground that the bonnet was never got replaced by the appellant from M/s. Jagdamba Body Repairs ? In this behalf reliance has been placed on the duplicate copy of letter dated 11.2.1994/25.10.1994 written by Ashok Kumar Soni, still another Surveyor and Loss Assessor to Branch Manager of the appellant at Jodhpur. Shri Soni has stated in this letter that on inquiry by him Shri Rana Ram, Proprietor of M/s. Jagdamba Body Repairs had told him that the appellant did not get the vehicle in question repaired by him. Whereas in support of the contents of this letter no information in writing from Shri Rana Ram or affidavit of Shri L.S. Sankhla, who was allegedly accompanying Shri Soni at the relevant time was filed, Shri Dungar Singh, Prop. of the appellant concern and Shri Rana Ram Prop. of M/s. Jagdamba Body Repairs had filed their affidavits wherein they had solemnly affirmed and stated on oath that a bonnet made of steel was replaced and that a sum of Rs. 38,350/- was paid to Shri Rana Ram by Shri Dungar Singh. It may be recalled that Shri Mehta in his report dated 13.9.1993 and Shri Pitti in his report dated 1.9.1993 had already valued the replaced Steel Centre Bonnet at Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 5,500/- respectively. It is clearly gathered from the quotation given by M/s. Rajesh Motors Raj. (P) Ltd., Jodhpur, main dealers of Ashok Leyland Products, that the N.C. Bonnet''s (Steel) cost was Rs. 46,671.20. In view of this standard cost of Centre Bonnet (Steel), the claim of the appellant for cost at Rs. 38,350/- was not unreasonable or excessive.

After having examined the versions of both the sides in sufficient detail, we are left in no doubt that after having got appellant''s claim from Surveyors after Surveyors examined it and having offered a paltry sum of Rs. 8,000/- to the appellant in total disregard of the report of Shri Mehta, Surveyor, and on appellants declining to accept the totally unjustified offer, the respondent made deliberate efforts to deny the just claim of the consumer. The repudiation made by the respondent was clearly and condemnably mala fide.

IN the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal as well as the complaint of the appellant allowed. The respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 46,208/- on account of repair expenses of the damaged insured vehicle with interest at the rate of 9 per cent from 1.6.1993 in addition to a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental agony caused to the appellant by the respondent by conscious and deliberate harassment, within a period of two months from today failing which the aforesaid amount of Rs. 46,208/- would attract interest at the rate of 12 per cent p.a. from 1.6.1993. The respondent would further pay cost of litigation, before the Forum and this Commission, at Rs. 10,000/-. The respondent Company may realise the aforesaid amounts from their erring and delinquent employees/servants. Appeal allowed.