AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE complainant alleged in the complaint that his insurance claim as regards his truck bearing Registration No. MP-23/9777 has not been settled by the opposite parties despite the complainant''s repeated requests. THE complainant had insured the aforesaid vehicle with the opposite party under Policy No. 31151501-05253/650/99999 for the period between 17.2.90 to 16.2.91 under the comprehensive policy. An amount of Rs. 6,206/- towards the premium was paid. THE policy covered the risk to the extent of Rs. 4,00,000/- to be payable to the insured in case of any loss. THE policy also indemnified the third party claim in case of an accident. On 2.4.90, the truck was involved in an accident in Rajasthan. THE truck was badly damaged. THE incident was reported to the police. THE incident was also intimated to the opposite party. THE opposite party carried out the joint survey of the damaged truck through M/s. R.J. Chandak and Sharadchandra Rakhade, the Surveyors. Both the Surveyors after making the inspection of the vehicle had assessed the damage to the tune of Rs. 93,450.90. But subsequently, the opposite party reduced that amount to Rs. 66,929/-. THE complainant refused to accept the same and filed this present complaint. It is alleged that the opposite party withheld the settlement of claim for 17 months and unilaterally and illegally reduced the loss to the tune of Rs. 65,350/- although the estimated loss claimed by the complainant is Rs. 1,87,520.10. THE complainant, therefore, claimed the interest and amount of compensation in addition to the loss of the vehicle totalling Rs. 2,77,870.10. THE complainant filed along with his complaint, the copy of the policy, the letters of correspondence and other documents.
THE opposite party did not file written version within the stipulated period of 30 days after receipt of notice u/Sec. 13 of the Consumer Protection Act. However, the opposite party through their Advocate on 24.4.92 made a request to file written statement on merits and for making the application to refer the matter to Arbitrator. It is also prayed that the opponent wants to examine the witnesses. THE complainant filed his affidavit duly sworn in dated 5.6.1992. THE opposite party did not file the written version till the hearing of the complaint but relied only on the affidavit of one Shri V.N. Subhedar, Technical expert of the Motor Laws Control Department belonging to the opposite party. THEre is no affidavit of any official of the opposite party filed in the dispute. In short, the allegations made in the complaint are neither denied by filing a written version or any affidavit on behalf of the opposite party. We have heard Shri Achaliya, Advocate for the complainant and Shri Mokashi, Advocate for the opposite parties. Necessary facts about the insurance policy and the risk covered under the policy and that the vehicle in question meet with an accident and thereafter, the joint survey made by two surveyors and the correspondence on record are not in dispute.
The complainant has alleged in the complaint that the truck in question was purchased in the year 1990 out of the loan obtained from the Bank. It is further contended that the comprehensive policy was covering the risk to the extent of Rs. 4,00,000/-. Insurance policy on record is at Sr. No. 1 of the documents. Perusal of the policy clearly shows that the cover under the aforesaid policy under Clause ''B'' liability to public risk to carry non-fare paying passengers as per endimt for which Rs. 21/- has been calculated towards the premium. Under the said head to cover the risk of two Drivers and cleaner Rs. 24/- has been calculated as premium. Moreover, under the same head, liability to carry six coolies is also covered and for that purpose Rs. 48/- has been calculated towards premium. After the accident admittedly the joint survey was carried out by the aforesaid two surveyors. The copies of the survey reports are at Ex. A, B, C, D & E. There is also a copy of repairing bill of the vehicle dated 19.12.90 which shows the purchase of Rs. 43,925/- worth spare parts. There is another bill dated 19.12.90 for the total expenditure of Rs. 21,464.79 for the repairs of the vehicle. On page 9 of those documents filed by the opposite party, the Surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs. 93,458.98. However, on page 6, Rs. 1,193.41 has been deducted for changing the chassis which does not appeal to reason. Thus, the complainant has claimed the actual loss suffered by him at Rs. 1,87,520.10 and interest on that amount Rs. 65,350/- and Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for the mental harassment.
AS against these allegations, there is no convincing reason put forth by the opposite party to deny the complainant''s claim. There is no written version or affidavit filed by the opposite party to controvert the allegations of the complainant. Under these circumstances, we have no hesitation to accept the loss assessed by the Surveyor to the tune of Rs. 93,458.98. The deduction from the aforesaid amount made by the opposite party on page 6 about the change in chassis cost cannot be accepted. The chassis is the important part of the vehicle and when the complainant has claimed that it was severely damaged affecting the alignment of the vehicle, deduction of Rs. 1,193.48 appears to be unreasonable. Hence, we can safely accept the assessment of the loss arrived at by the joint surveyors. There cannot be any doubt as regards the survey which has been conducted by the two surveyors. Hence, we are inclined to accept the loss estimated by the surveyor for Rs. 93,458.98. Hence, we pass the following order:- ORDER The complaint is allowed. The opposite party shall settle the claim of the complainant for Rs. 93,458.98 as on 19.2.91 when the complainant addressed the letter to the opposite party. The complainant also be paid interest on that amount at the existing Bank rate till realisation by way of compensation. Similarly, we quantify the amount of Rs. 500/- the cost and other incidental expenses. The aforesaid amount be paid by the opposite party to the complainant in full and final payment of the complainant''s claim as regards the policy in question. The rest of the claim of complainant is dismissed. Complaint allowed with costs.