United India Insurance Company Ltd vs SUKHDEV SINGH GILL

THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Forum, Sirmoura at Nahan, date 22.7.94, whereby the opposite party (hereinafter to be referred to as the Insurance Company) has been directed to pay to the respondent Rs. 1,51,000/- less permissible deductions, alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from 1.8.91 till actual payment and also costs of Rs. 250/-.

THE relevant facts necessary to be mentioned are that the respondent who was a owner of a Truck bearing Registration No. HP 17.3100 Old Number UGA-8515, insured this Truck with the Insurance Company for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 /- from October, 1990 to October, 1991. THE Truck met with an accident on 1.4.91 when the Insurance policy was in force. THE respondent preferred his claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated by the Insurance Company mainly on the ground that there is no deficiency in service and the loss should be assessed on the basis of the report of Surveyor Shri Vinod Singh Pal who has assessed the loss at Rs. 83,988/- subject to production of vouchers and in the alternative for Rs. 56,526/- without production of vouchers. However, the accident of the vehicle during the subsistence of the insurance contract has not been denied. Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that according to Clause 8 of the insurance policy, the matter could be referred to the Arbitrator as the difference has arisen over the quantum of compensation in the present case. This point has not been taken either in the written statement nor at the time of argument before the learned District Forum and as such this question cannot be permitted to be raised at this belated stage. Apart from this, the Insurance Company has at no stage taken action in accordance with the terms of clause 8 of the insurance policy for the appointment of the Arbitrator. Furthermore, even if it is presumed that the matter could have been referred to the Arbitrator this, itself, does not oust the jurisdiction of the Fora to decide the matter in issue. An arbitration clause in an insurance policy pertaining to despites about the quantum of insurance claim does not operate as a jurisdictional bar against the Redressal Agencies under the Act. Further, the existence of a remedy by way of arbitration does not preclude the consumer from seeking redressal before the Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act which is a special statute enacted by Parliament for the specific purpose of providing a speedy, cheap and efficacious remedy to consumers before the Special Forums created for the that purpose. Again it will be noticed hereinafter that there appears to be no dispute even about the quantum of compensation as is tried to be made out by the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company. This contention, therefore, has been made merely to be rejected.

Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company next vehemently argues that the report of Mr. Vinod Singh Pal should have been relied upon by the learned District Forum which has assessed the damage for an amount of Rs. 83,988/- on production of vouchers and in the alterative for Rs. 56,526/- without production of vouchers. It is revealed from the report of Mr. Vinod Singh Pal that he has based his claim on the photographs of the accidented vehicle. No doubt, he has also inspected the vehicle but the vehicle by that time had already been repaired. Therefore, this report has been rightly rejected by the learned District Forum as the report is on the basis of the photographs of the accidented vehicle. Merely Mr. Vinod Singh Pal has assessed the loss at a lower amount, cannot form the basis for assessing the loss by the Insurance Company. The finding of this effect given by the learned District Forum is absolutely correct with which we are in agreement.

THE next report which requires consideration is the report of Mr. Rakesh Aggarwal, another Surveyor dated 15.5.91. As a matter of fact, the claim has been assessed by the learned District Forum on the basis of this report. Mr. Rakesh Aggarwal, the Surveyor has assessed the loss on total loss without salvage basis at Rs. 1,51,000/-. On the basis of the estimates of re pairs prepared by the respondent, Mr. Rakesh Aggarwal has made a note - "Subject to the conceding liability of the insurance policy terms and conditions the loss is assessed on T.L.W.S. basis for Rs. 151,000/- only". In other words, the ash loss on the basis of loss assessed was Rs. 1,51,000/- and agreed to by the insured. Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, however, states that an agreement on behalf of the Surveyor is not binding upon the Insurance Company. This argument has no force. It will be apparent from the letter of the Insurance Company dated 31.5.91 that the Insurance Company itself has assessed the claim for payment on the basis of this report subject to production of load challan. THE load challan, infact, was produced by the respondent vide his letter dated 17.6.91. This clearly shows that even the Insurance Company agreed to make payment of Rs. 1,51,000/- vide its letter dated 31.5.91. THE letter dated 17.6.91 very clearly stipulates that the load challan was submitted although the dispute has been raised by he Insurance Company that the challan was never submitted alongwith this letter, which version is not correct. It will be further noticed that vide subsequent two letters dated 20.8.91 and 17.9.91 asking for certain other documents from the respondent, the Insurance Company does not mention that the load challan is also required. This clearly hows that the load challan was, infact, submitted alongwith original letter issued by the respondent dated 17.6.91. Repudiation of the claim, therefore, is bad in the eyes of law as the Insurance Company, infact, has agreed to an amount of Rs. 1,51,000/- on the basis of the report of Mr. Rakesh Aggarwal. THEy cannot be permitted to wriggle out to this commitment. Even otherwise, the report of Mr. Rakesh Aggarwal appears to be reasonable. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned District Forum is quite justified in relying upon the report of Mr. Rakesh Aggarwal, Surveyor and basing its judgment on the basis of this report for the reasons stated in the judgment with which we are in broad agreement and no interference is called for.

FOR the reasons stated above, there is no force in this appeal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. There is no orders as to costs. Appeal dismissed.