United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs G.CHANRAMOHAN

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 25th day of November, 1997 in O.P. No. 11/97 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South).

THE appellant is the opposite party while the respondent is the complainant. Short facts may be related in order to understand the crux of the issue arising for consideration in this action.

The complainant insured his Bajaj Super FE Scooter under a comprehensive insurance claim policy with the opposite party Insurance Company for a sum of Rs. 21,000/- after paying the necessary and requisite premium. The policy so taken was to enure for a period of one year from 18.2.1996 to 17.2.1997. The said vehicle met with an accident on 25.7.1996. The accident was, of course, intimated to the opposite party. The quotations for setting right the repairs to the vehicle were called for from one Senthil Automobiles-Senthil Travels-Auto Consultants and the said automobiles had given estimate of Rs. 27,145/-. The estimate so given comprises spare parts to be put into the vehicle amounting to Rs. 24,045/- and labour charges to the tune of Rs. 3,100/-, all totalling to Rs. 27,145/-. The opposite party Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor by name one Mr. K.B. Gopikrishnan. He submitted his report dated 23.9.1996 to the opposite party Insurance Company. In the said report, he would estimate the market value of the vehicle on the date of accident at Rs. 16,000/- and the wreck value of the damaged vehicle at Rs. 7,000/-. He suggested for making the payment of Rs. 9,000/- (Rs. 16,000/- - Rs. 7,000/- = Rs. 9,000/-) to the insured after leaving the wreck with the insured/complainant.

IN such a backdrop and setting, the complainant knocked at the doors of the Forum below alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party INsurance Company and claiming for certain reliefs as found mentioned in the complaint. The opposite party Insurance Company in turn resisted the claim. What they would say is that there was no deficiency in service on their part. They simply accepted the value of the report of the independent Surveyor and were ready and willing to settle the claim as per report of the Surveyor. The complaint as such is liable to be dismissed.

THE Forum below after taking into consideration the materials placed on record, however, recorded a finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Insurance Company and consequently directed the opposite party Insurance Company to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 14,000/- towards the value of the damaged vehicle and cost of Rs. 1,000/- within a month from the date of its order. Aggrieved by the order as above, the opposite party Insurance Company resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of their choice, namely learned Counsel Mr. P.V. Raghavan. On service of process, the respondent/complainant also entered appearance through a Counsel of his choice, namely learned Counsel Mr. M.K. Srinivasan.

WE heard the arguments of learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties.

FROM the pith and submission of the said learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties, the one and only question that crops up for consideration is as to whether the order of the Forum below is sustainable in law on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. There is no pale of controversy that the scooter of the complainant was insured with the opposite party Insurance Company for a sum of Rs. 21,000/-. It is also admitted that the policy was to enure for a period of one year from 18.2.1996 to 17.2.1997. Yet another fact about which there is no dispute is that during the subsistence of the policy, the vehicle met with an accident on 25.7.1996 and in the accident, the vehicle got severely damaged and this aspect of the matter is also not disputed by the Insurance Company. The Forum below, it appears, accepted the wreck value of the damaged vehicle at Rs. 7,000/- as given by the Surveyor in his report under Ex. B1. It is also inferable from the order of the Forum below that since the vehicle in question had been insured for Rs. 21,000/-, the opposite party Insurance Company has to make the payment of the entire amount of Rs. 21,000/- to the claimant and after deducting the wreckage value of Rs. 7,000/- as given by the Surveyor, the balance of Rs. 14,000/- had to be paid by the opposite party Insurance Company to the complainant after leaving the wreckage with the complainant.

The rationale for coming to such a conclusion by the Forum below on the facts and in the circumstances of the case cannot at all be stated to be improper, calling for interference. The Forum below also awarded costs in a sum of Rs. 1,000/-, which, we feel, is reasonable not calling for interference. The appeal as such deserves to be dismissed.

IN fine, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. We, however, make it crystal clear that the award of the Forum below as confirmed by us is required to be complied with by the opposite party INsurance Company within a month from the date of receipt of our order, or otherwise the complainant would be perfectly at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, "the Act, 1986"). Appeal dismissed.