B.N. Sinha, President:
1. The complainant has filed this case claiming Rs. 1,22,319/- as his insurance claim alongwith 18% interest per annum thereon and Rs. 21,000/- as compensation for the loss which he claims to have sustained due to non-settlement of his insurance claim by the opposite party-Insurance Company.
2. The facts of the case as put forth by the complainant may be briefly stated. The complainant is the owner of a Bus bearing No. 4395 which was insured by the opposite party-Insurance Company for Rs. 2,80,000/- for the period from 29.10.91 to 28.10.92. On 8.12.91 the bus met with an accident for which information was lodged at the Police Station and he also filed his claim before the Insurance Company claiming Rs. 1,22,319/-. But the Insurance Company has failed to settle his claim and therefore he had no way out but to file this case before this Commission.
3. On being noticed the opposite party appeared and filed written version stating inter-alia that the complainant informed the opposite party regarding the accident on 9.12.91 and therefore after the opposite party instructed one Mr. Sailesh Kumar to make spot inquiry, and that on 15.12.91 the complainant informed the opposite party that the spot survey had been made and asked for final survey. The opposite party appointed Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha as Surveyor who submitted his final survey report on 27.1.92 estimating the loss sustained by the complainant due to accident of his bus at Rs. 14,618.13. It has been further averred by the opposite party that the complainant objected to the assessment made by the second Surveyor and hence opposite party appointed Mr. Anil Kumar Jha on 20.2.92 to reassess the loss sustained by the complainant. But inspite of registered letters sent to the complainant to see Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, the complainant failed to do so and the complainant did not report to the Surveyor though he (the complainant) went on writing for early settlement of his claim. It has been further averred by the opposite party that as there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the case of the complainant is fit to be dismissed.
4. The complainant has filed his own affidavit and the photo-stat copies of the bills and the cash memos purported to have been issued by the firms concerned in respect of the repair of his bus to support his case. The opposite party on the other hand has filed affidavit of one Mr. Ariful Hoda, Assistant Manager of the Insurance Company and the Surveyors report to substantiate their case.
5. The complainant has not said in his complaint petition or in his affidavit as to where he got his bus repaired. Of course photo-state copies of some bills and cash memos have been filed by the complainant to show that his bus was repaired and the cost involved therein. But no affidavit or oral evidence has been produced to vouch-safe the genuineness and authen city of those bills and cash memos. The complainant has said in his affidavit that cash memos and bills filed in the case are correct. But that does not establish the genuineness of those cash memos and bills in the absence of any evidence either in the form of affidavit of oral evidence that the bus was repaired there and parts were purchased in connection thereof.
6. From the perusal of the survey report of Mr. A. K. Sinha dated 29.1.92, it appears that he has assessed the loss sustained by the complainant at Rs. 14,618.43. No evidence has been produced on behalf of the complainant to falsify this estimate of his loss by Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha â the Surveyor and therefore we see no reason to disbelieve the Surveyors Report. Hence we accept the estimate of the loss made by Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the Surveyor. We accordingly direct the Insurance Company-opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs. 14,618.13 towards his insurance claim.
7. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the claim of the complainant was settled by the Insurance Company on the basis of the report of Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha Surveyor and the complainant was informed with regard thereto by the opposite party. The report of Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Surveyor is dated 27.1.92 and this case has been filed by the complainant before this Commission on 23.2.93 as claim of the complainant has not been settled. Of course the opposite party has averred in their written version that as the complainant objected to the amount of loss estimated by Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha Surveyor. Mr. Amar Nath Jha another Surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company for re-assessment. But no paper has been produced by the opposite party to indicate that the complainant was ever informed of the estimate of his loss by Mr. Anil Kumar Sinhaâthe Surveyor. Hence we find that the Insurance Company did not take any decision with regard to the claim of the complainant inspite of the submission of his report by Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha which cause financial loss and mental anguish to the complainant for which the complainant has to be adequately compensated.
8. Under the circumstances, the opposite party is directed to pay 15% per annum interest from 27.2.92, i.e., one month after the submission of his report by Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 14,618.13 till the date of its payment to the complainant for the inordinate delay in the settlement of his claim. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the financial loss besides Rs. 1,500/- (one thousand and five hundred) as compensation for the mental anguish caused to the complainant due to delay in the settlement of his claim.
9. The opposite party will pay Rs. 500/- as cost to the complainant.
Complaint allowed with costs.