Surinder Kumar vs DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA Insurance Company LTD.

THIS is an appeal filed against the order dated 2.11.2000 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. 16904 of 1996 "Surinder Kumar C/o National Woollen Mills, Show Room No. 15, Madhya Marg, Sector 26, Chandigarh v. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, G.T. Road, Karnal and United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, S.C.O. 53, Madhya Marg, Sector 26, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

THE facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be narrated as under : THE complainant Shri Surinder Kumar got his car No. DL-4CA/7234 comprehensively insured with the respondents for a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- for the period commencing from 9.9.1993 to 8.9.1994. THE said car met with an accident on 1.12.1993. THE complainant lodged the claim with the opposite party. THE opposite party - Insurance Company got the loss assessed through the Surveyor. THE claim was, however, not settled for a long time despite repeated requests. THE claim was, however, repudiated vide letter dated 3.4.1996 on the ground that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. THE Insurance Company, the opposite parties/respondents filed their reply wherein they submitted, inter alia, that two Surveyors had been appointed. THE first Surveyor gave his report on 31.12.1993 and the next Surveyor Sh. K.K. Gupta gave his report on 24th May, 1994 assessing the loss at a sum of Rs. 78,750/- on total loss basis. THE repudiation of the claim was claimed to be justified on the ground that the driver Hans Raj did not hold valid driving licence as the same was not genuine. The District Forum held that the repudiation of the claim of the complainant was deficiency in service as the opposite parties had failed to discharge the onus to prove the invalidity of licence of Hans Raj. It was also held that the claim which was lodged by the complainant with the Insurance Company in December, 1993 remained pending for more than two years and the same was not dealt with promptly and this added to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties/Insurance Company. The District Forum-II, consequently allowed the complaint with costs of Rs. 1,500/- and directed the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs. 78,750/- assessed by the Surveyor to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum from 1.6.1994 (after allowing a period of five months to the Insurance Company to settle the claim) till payment. The complainant felt dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum-II awarding a sum of Rs. 78,750/- on the total loss basis assessed by the Surveyor Shri K.K. Gupta along with interest @ 12% per annum with costs Rs. 1,500/- and has preferred this appeal.

Notice of appeal was issued to the respondents who put in appearance through Mr. Vishwas Ahuja, Advocate. Record of the complaint case was summoned. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent and have carefully perused the order of the District Forum-II under appeal.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant contended that since the car had been insured for a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- and had suffered damages to the extent that it was beyond repairs during the period the insurance policy was effected and, therefore, the District Forum should have awarded a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- which was the amount for which the vehicle had been insured. Mr. Vishwas Ahuja, Advocate appearing for the respondents on the other hand contended that the report of the Surveyor was subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the District Forum awarded the amount assessed by the Surveyor subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Mr. Ahuja, Advocate further submitted that the claim of the appellant had been repudiated keeping in view the terms and conditions of the policy which provided for the holding a valid driving licence by the driver of the vehicle. Mr. Ahuja, Advocate, however, contended that the District Forum did not uphold the contention of the respondents regarding the driving licence of Hans Raj being invalid which finding has been accepted by the opposite parties. Mr. Ahuja, Advocate contended that if the report of the Surveyor is to be accepted as it is, the amount of total loss assessed by the Surveyor is to be given effect to and the same has been done in the instant case by the District Forum. The learned Counsel for the appellant referred to the paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the complaint and its corresponding reply submitted by the opposite parties, in order to contend that the factual position was not in dispute regarding the facts about the car having been insured comprehensively for a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- about the accident having taken place on 1.12.1993 in which the car was totally smashed and the passengers sitting in the car suffered serious injuries. We examined the contents of the said paragraphs and in para 4 of the complaint specific reference was made to the appointment of Surveyor and in para 5, it was mentioned, inter alia, that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 475/- for the survey of the car to Shri S. Makkar. The survey was done after unreasonably long time. In para 6, reference was made to the repudiation of the claim by the opposite parties. In para 7 of the complaint, reference was made to the fact that the Insurance Company had rejected the claim without providing the complainant with the investigation report conducted by the Insurance Company regarding the validity of the driving licence. In para 8, reference was made to a reminder sent by the complainant on 12.7.1996 to the Insurance Company for supply of copy of the investigation report. In para 9 of the complaint, it was averred, inter alia, that the car of the complainant was lying idle since last about three years and the complainant had to hire a taxi for his personal use and had to spent more than Rs. 1,40,000/- for the hiring of the taxi. It was averred that the complainant had suffered this loss due to the negligence of the Insurance Company. The complainant suffered mental tension and humiliation due to this undue delay in deciding the claim. The complainant had claimed a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- as the cost of car as per policy, a sum of Rs. 475/- as Surveyor charges, carriage charges for bringing the car from Panipat to Chandigarh amounting to Rs. 1,000/-, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as parking charges for three years and a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- was claimed as compensation for the amount paid in hiring the taxi in the absence of settlement of the claim relating to the car of the complainant. In all, the complainant claimed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- with compound interest @ 18% per annum.

IN our considered view, the claim of the complainant for a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- paid towards hiring of the taxi is on the face of it not acceptable and the same is not relatable to the non-settlement of the claim regarding the car insured with the INsurance Company in which the cost of the car was claimed as a case of total loss. The appellant, in our considered view, was also not entitled to claim the other amounts allegedly paid for as parking charges and carriage etc. The District Forum-II gave effect to the report of Surveyor and ordered the amount of Rs. 78,750/- to be paid to the complainant which had been assessed by the Surveyor together with interest @ 12% per annum. Besides this, a sum of Rs. 1,500/- had been awarded to the complainant as costs. The order of the District Forum-II in our considered view does not suffer from any illegality either on facts or on law. The District Forum-II has duly considered the evidence on record. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is dismissed. The costs shall however be borne by the parties themselves. Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeal dismissed.