TRILOCHAN DASH vs Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.

HEARD Mr. P.K. Nanda, learned Counsel for complainant, and Mr. N.K. Misra, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company.

THE complainant has moved directly this Commission with an allegation that his Tata Sumo car bearing Registration No. OR-02-F/1123. It was completely burnt and thus destroyed. It was insured with the opposite party Insurance Company with their Koonjhar Branch. THE policy of the said insurance was valid between 4.12.1996 and 3.12.1997 under comprehensive insurance policy. On 25.3.1997 while the vehicle was parked near his shop at Ghasipura Market some miscreants set fire to it and there was total damage to the vehicle beyond repair as claimed by the complainant. A report was lodged at Ghasipura Police Station and the Insurance Company were also informed about the same on 26.3.1997. THE claim form was sent on 27.3.1997. THE Insurance Company also deputed a Surveyor and the vehicle was inspected by them on 27.3.1997. THE complainant''s case is that in spite of his claim being justified the Insurance Company did not oblige in paying the amount. It is the case of the Insurance Company that there was no deficiency in service on their part since they took up the matter for investigation by their Surveyor and not only that they also processed the application and arrived at a decision for payment of the amount claimed under the policy at one stage which the complainant also accepted by way of agreement, but subsequently it was found that the first Surveyor had not taken into account the depreciation value of the vehicle. Therefore, the second Surveyor was deputed to assess the loss who assessed it at Rs. 82,000/- and, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to anything except this amount.

We have heard Mr. Misra extensively in the matter and Mr. Nanda also has highlighted the relevant documents from the side of the complainant. The fact that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle is proved. A question was raised by the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company that the vehicle did not bear a permanent registration number. Mr. Nanda has controverted this by saying that once the Insurance Company had come up with a policy and had accepted the risk, the question of registration and ownership of the vehicle was established. We accordingly accept this submission of Mr. Nanda. The question about ownership of the vehicle and whether it had a permanent registration number or not does not assume importance, having been admitted.

SO far as the contention of Mr. Misra that there had been depreciation of various parts of the vehicle and the assessment of the loss is concerned, the first Surveyor did not take note of the same which the second Surveyor did. It is the contention of Mr. Nanda that the vehicle was a new one which we accept. We do not find any justification to accept the contention of Mr. Misra that depreciation should be allowed. We have gone through the acceptance note, the Xerox copy of which is annexed to the complaint petition and the receipt dated 29.7.1997. This acceptance note has been signed by both the complainant and the Surveyor. It is submitted by Mr. Misra that the Surveyor was not competent to prepare this acceptance note and the Insurance Company is not bound by such note. To this we may say that though in fact the Surveyor was not authorised by the Insurance Company in writing, there was justification for him to take the signature of the complainant and ask him to accept Rs. 3,20,000/- towards the loss. It can be said that the Surveyor at the particular moment was acting on behalf of Insurance Company and he was assessing the loss on their behalf. So whatever assessment had been done cannot be brushed aside by the Insurance Company unless it could be said whimsical, arbitrary and without any basis. We do not find any basis for deputing the second Surveyor who has assessed the loss at Rs. 82,000/- after taking into account the depreciation value of the vehicle, which is not correct.

MR. Misra submits that there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the Insurance Company. Not taking up the claim of the complainant when the assessment of loss had already been done by the first Surveyor amounts to deficiency in service. We accordingly held that there would be deficiency in service to that extent and, therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount to the complainant under the policy. But the complainant is not entitled to any compensation. We accordingly direct the Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs. 3,20,000/- with interest. It is submitted by MR. Nanda referring to Annexure-1 dated 9.11.1996 that while sanctioning the loan amount in favour of the complainant he was required to pay interest at the rate of 17.5 per cent per annum, to the Corporation Bank. We have found the submission of MR. Nanda correct. In the result, the complaint petition is allowed. Insurance Company is directed to pay the complainant Rs. 3,20,000/- with 17% interest to be calculated from the date of acceptance note i.e. 29.7.1997 till payment. No cost. Complaint allowed.