United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs THIRU R. KANNAN

WE are satisfied that the appeal has to be accepted. The lower Forum has committed obvious errors. The lower Forum has erred in observing that just because the complainant has produced bills, it is incumbent upon the opposite party to accept those bills. The lower Forum has also erred in holding that because the Surveyor has been appointed at the instance of the opposite party, the Surveyor was biased and, therefore, his report should not be accepted. The lower Forum also erred in presuming that the Surveyor did not inspect the vehicle whereas he did. It further erred in holding that the Surveyor ought to have inspected the vehicle at N.S. Ramarao Body Works. It has also been curiously stated by the lower Forum in Para 10 that the Insurance Company is bound to analyse the case of the complainant independently. WE do not know what the lower Forum means by the same? The lower Forum has also erred in holding that there is no condition in Ex. B3 to refer to Arbitration on the other hand Ex. B3 clearly mentions the same under Condition No. 7. The opposite party was willing to sanction the amount as arrived at by the Surveyor but the complainant was insisting upon payment as claimed by him. Therefore, when there is a dispute, the arbitration clause would come into play. Under Condition No. 7 the matter has to be referred to an Arbitrator. Therefore, in such circumstances, we have to hold that this is not a case where any deficiency can be attributed because the opposite party whose duty is to appoint a Surveyor on hearing about the accident has done so and the Surveyor had inspected and submitted a report assessing the liability at Rs. 1,65,473.71. The opposite party was willing to settle the matter accordingly. But the complainant has not been ready for the settlement. He has been insisting upon more than that. Therefore, in such circumstances, it cannot be stated that there is any deficiency in service. There was no question of repudiation. The dispute is now only with regard to the amount payable. When the dispute is with regard to the amount, the contract of insurance provides for arbitration. Therefore, in such circumstances, the complaint is not maintainable.

IN the result, this appeal is allowed but in the circumstances without cost. The order passed by the lower Forum is hereby set aside. As a difference has arisen between the parties as to the quantum to be paid under the policy, the opposite party shall take steps accordingly to refer the matter to an Arbitrator for his decision. The opposite party shall take steps accordingly to refer the matter to Arbitrator within two months. However, it is made clear that if the complainant is willing to accept the sum of Rs. 1,65,473.71 as arrived at by the independent Surveyor in full settlement and expresses his willingness accordingly in writing, to the opposite party, the opposite party shall accept the same and disburse the amount accordingly to the complainant within two months of the receipt of such a request. IN the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own cost. Appeal allowed.