SAHIB SINGH BACHHAL vs National Insurance Company Ltd.

THIS appeal has been filed against order dated 7.8.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-II) in Complaint Case No. 588 of 2000. The appellant/complainant Shri Sahib Singh Bachhal had insured a scooter bearing No. CH-3-4231 (Bajaj Spirit) with the O.P.-National Insurance Company Limited (for short hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company) in the first week of November, 1999 and it was damaged in an accident on 19.11.1999. The main point urged by the appellant/complainant is that the Insurance Company ignored the report of their own Surveyor who assessed the loss at a sum of Rs. 11,300/-. His repair bill of Rs. 12,933.02P was submitted but instead O.P. settled his claim at Rs. 9,715/-. The appellant/complainant has alleged this to be a deficiency in service on the part of respondent/O.P. Insurance Company and has prayed for a direction to pay him the balance and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony.

THE respondent/O.P. has submitted, inter alia, that the Surveyor Shri Sher Singh assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 10,512.80P. However, Rs. 802.50P were deducted due to non-submission of bills of this amount by the appellant/complainant and Rs. 700.66P deducted due to difference in rate of items in bill submitted and rates assessed by the Surveyor and further a depreciation of Rs. 169.58P was applied on the battery as this was omitted by the Surveyor in his report. THE respondent/O.P. further submitted that after all permissible deductions an amount of Rs. 8,840/- on account of damage to the scooter and labour charges of Rs. 850/- were found payable and thus the appellant/complainant found entitled to Rs. 9,715/- and the same was paid to him on 28.4.2000. Copy of the cheque and discharge voucher has been brought on record vide Annexure R-2. In evidence, the complainant filed his own affidavit along with related documents. The O.P.-Insurance Company filed affidavit of one Shri Rakesh Mohan, Divisional Manager in evidence along with Annexures R-1 and R-2.

The District Forum-II dismissed the complaint on the reasoning that the complainant has received Rs. 9,715/- from the O.P. towards the full and final discharge of his claim under the Insurance Policy and since no fraud, coercion and undue influence etc. has even been alleged much less proved, the amount as payable to him under the terms of policy discharges the liability of the O.P.-Insurance Company. The authority cited as Jagdish Prasad Dagar v. Divisional Manager, LIC, II (1992) CPJ 493 (NC), was found not applicable to the facts of the instant case.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the District Forum-II, the complainant filed this appeal pleading, inter alia, that the District Forum-II has not taken any decision on his application for summoning the original record of the case in order to verify the facts. Further, the appellant/Insurance Company not satisfied with the report of the Surveyor Shri Sher Singh deputed another Surveyor which was also similar to the earlier one but that was also ignored by the Insurance Company without any justification. The appellant has also contended that his signatures were taken on the blank voucher on the plea that it was according to the procedure of the Insurance Company that without his signatures, the O.P. will not be able to pass his claim. The same voucher was filled up by the O.P. in their own handwriting as given in Annexure R-2. The appellant on 24.4.2000 lodged a protest against short payment by the Insurance Company and he allegedly assured that he should accept the amount and the balance payment would be released to him after the completion of the audit. The appellant has also contended that copies of the letters dated 9.5.2000 and 26.8.2000 brought on record of the appeal file vide Annexures R-4 and R-5 respectively have not been replied to by the Insurance Company. Another plea of the appellant is that in the affidavit filed by the O.P. of Shri Rakesh Mohan, Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company, there is an overwriting of his name in the verification clause, (which in our opinion is a typographical mistake which was later on corrected). The appellant has also assailed the impugned order on the ground that neither any action has been taken against the O.P.-Insurance Company nor the District Forum has verified the facts which have been concealed by the O.P. and he has prayed for setting aside of the impugned order with a prayer to direct the O.P. to pay the balance amount due to him with interest and award Rs. 15,000/- towards as mental agony and harassment suffered by him. We have gone through the record of the complaint filed and rival contentions of both the parties and have carefully perused the order impugned under appeal.

AFTER going through the entire record, we are of the considered opinion that the District Forum-II appreciated the facts of the case rightly on the basis of evidence on record. The District Forum-II relied on receipt Annexure R-2 dated 28.4.2000 which is a vital document for the adjudication of this consumer dispute. A perusal of this document shows that Rs. 9,715/- were accepted by the appellant/complainant in full and final discharge of his claim and has accepted the same without any protest. Since nowhere the appellant has been able to establish that any coercion or any such undue influence was used on him for the acceptances of the amount, the District Forum-II has rightly dismissed the complaint of the appellant. The District Forum-II had no material on record to come to a different finding to sustain his plea in view of the admitted factum of non-submission of bills for the amount of Rs. 852/- by the complainant to the Insurance Company and this amount was deducted by them justifiably. The deduction on account of depreciation (50%) of the cost of battery, since as per rules cannot be held unjustified. The appellant/complainant has nowhere shown that he had submitted the bill of the amount of Rs. 852/- and the Insurance Company was not justified in deducting the depreciation on the cost of battery. So a bona fide decision taken by the Insurance Company was upheld by the District Forum-II, which in our opinion, on the basis of material on record, cannot be interfered with. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that this appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed. The order of the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh is upheld. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. Copies of this judgment be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.