Judgment:
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member
This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 19.05.2010 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as œState Commission?)in First Appeal No. 1561/2007 against the order dated 31.01.2007 passed in consumer complaint No. 216 of 2006 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Prakasam, District Ongole.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/ respondent is the owner of a bus bearing No. AP 27-U-5445 operating between Kaudukur to Hyderabad and the said bus was insured for Rs. 9,00,000/- with the petitioner for the period from 21.01.2004 to 20.01.2005. The bus met with an accident on 30.11.2004 at Verapatnam when one of the drivers J. Srinivasa Rao escaped injuries, while the spare driver Chenchanah died and may passengers sustained injuries. A report was registered by the police under Section 279 and 304A of the IPC in case Crime No. 84/2004. The complainant got the vehicle repaired by spending a sum of Rs. 6,85,000/- and submitted insurance claim with the petitioner. The petitioner repudiated the claim on the ground that the bus had permit for allowing 20 passengers to travel, but at the time of accident, more than 25 persons were travelling in the said vehicle. As per the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy, only 20 persons are supposed to travel in the vehicle and hence, there was violation of the conditions of the policy. The District Forum after considering the evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 6,85,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 30.01.2005 (i.e. from after two months from the date of claim) till the date of realization and also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- each, as compensation and as cost of the litigation. On appeal against this order, the State Commission held that the insurance company could have settled the claim on non-standard basis, if more passengers were travelling in the bus. The learned State Commission awarded 75% of the claim, saying that the insurance company should pay Rs. 5,13,750/- with interest @ 9% from 30.01.2005 till the date of realization, besides the compensation and cost awarded by the District Forum. They also, awarded Rs. 2,000/- as cost of the appeal and give a time of four weeks for compliance of the order. It is against this order that the insurance company / opposite party have filed the present petition.
3. At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that as per the original estimate, a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- was required to be spent on repairs, but the amount actually spent was Rs. 6,85,000/-. The learned counsel invited our attention to the report of the surveyor dated 20.08.2005 and also report dated 26.07.2006, saying that the surveyor had assessed the loss as Rs. 2,36,785/-. It was a detailed report and had given description of all items of damage. However, the learned District Forum and the State Commission chose to award much higher amounts than the report given by the surveyor, which cannot be justified. It was obligatory on the State Commission to consider the report given by the surveyor and to give its finding on the same.
4. On behalf of the respondent, the learned counsel invited our attention to the order of the State commission, saying that the report of the surveyor had been duly considered by the State Commission, as mentioned in the body of the order. He also invited our attention to the order of the District Forum, in which it has been stated that the opposite party did not produce the documents, like survey report, photograph with negatives and original copies of estimation submitted by the complainant. The District Forum therefore has drawn the presumption that these documents were in favour of the complainant. The report of the surveyor was produced first time in appeal.
5. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. It is very clear from the facts of the case that the money spent for repair of the vehicle was Rs. 6,85,000/-, which was well within the amount for which the vehicle was insured. It is also clear from the record that the number of persons travelling in the vehicle at the time of accident was more than the permissible number. The State Commission therefore decided to award the claim on non-standard basis after taking into account the money actually spent for repair of the vehicle. We do not find any error or irregularity or illegality in this order and it has been made after considering the report of the surveyor as well. It has further been observed by the State Commission that the surveyor submitted his report 2 ½ years after the accident. The State Commission has also observed as to why a period of 2 ½ years was taken to repudiate the claim and that too by suppressing the original surveyor report.
6. In the light of above facts, it is very clear that the order passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any infirmity on any score and the same is liable to be sustained. The petition is therefore dismissed and order of the State Commission upheld with no order as to costs.