R.S. Sharma, President:
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.02.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum) in Complaint Case No.190/2010, whereby the complaint filed by the appellant/ complainant, has been partly allowed and respondent/O.P./ Insurance Company, has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,43,750/- to the appellant /complainant within a month from the date of order, along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 16.04.2010 till date of payment. The District Forum has further directed the respondent/O.P./Insurance Company to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation to the appellant/complainant.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the appellant/complainant before the District Forum are : that the appellant/complainant is registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.04-ZA-6938. The said vehicle was insured with the respondent/O.P./Insurance Company for the period from 08.01.2009 to 07.01.2010 under Policy No.2303782334004650. The Insured Declared Value of the vehicle was Rs.7,25,000/- and the amount of premium paid was Rs.14,283/-. On 20.07.2009, the said vehicle met with a road accident near Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.) and the vehicle was completely damaged. The incident was reported to the Police Station, Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.) and also to the respondent/O.P./Insurance Company. The Insurance Company conducted sport survey and issued Motor Claim Form. The appellant/complainant submitted motor claim form before the Insurance Company along with all documents of the vehicle. The Surveyor was appointed by the respondent/O.P./Insurance Company, who inspected the vehicle and informed that the vehicle was completely damaged and it cannot be brought in the condition in which it was earlier The appellant/complainant requested the Insurance Company to pay the compensation, but the Insurance Company did not pay any amount to him. Hence the appellant/complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum.
3. The respondent/O.P./Insurance Company, filed its written version before the District Forum, and denied the allegations levelled by the appellant/complainant in the complaint. The respondent/O.P./Insurance Company pleaded in the written statement that the Surveyor has mentioned in the report that œThe insured has not dismantled the vehicle till date and not starting the repairs of the vehicle and as sufficient time has been elapse, so we are issuing our status report with assessment prior to dismantling of the vehicle.? The Insurance Company further averred that the Surveyor, Shri Shyam Chabra found the vehicle as repairable and on the basis of repair, assessed the loss. Thus, the Insurance Company has not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.
4. After appreciation of material available before it, learned District Forum partly allowed the complainant and awarded compensation to the appellant/complainant, as mentioned hereinabove in para 1 of the order.
5. Shri Sanjay Dadsena, learned counsel for the appellant / complainant argued that the finding recorded by the District Forum in para 8 of the impugned order is contrary to law and is liable to be set aside. The appellant/complainant is entitled for the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle but the District Forum has wrongly deducted depreciation of 25%, which is erroneous and is not sustainable.
6. Shri S. Pandya, learned counsel for the respondent / O.P. argued that the Surveyor, after inspecting the vehicle gave his report. The Surveyor assessed the loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.1,43,750/-. The report of the Surveyor is an important, valuable and reliable document and cannot be brushed aside lightly without any material to the contrary on record and it should be given due weightage. He further argued that instead of Rs.1,43,750/-, learned District Forum, awarded a sum of Rs.5,43,750/- to the appellant/complainant i.e. 75% of the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant, is liable to be dismissed. He placed reliance on Champalal Verma v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, III (2008) CPJ 93(NC) and Chanan Preet Singh v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., I (2012) 341 (NC).
7. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and have also perused the record of the District Forum minutely.
8. The appellant/complainant filed documents. Document A-1 is copy of the Reliance Goods Carrying Vehicle Package Policy Certificate Cum Policy Schedule, document A-2 is permit, document A- 3 is copy of driving licence of Jagdish Singh Bachher, document A-4 is Form “ B Declaration in Respect of Transport vehicle, document A-5 is intimation given to the Police Station Pithora, regarding the incident on 20.07.2009, document A-6 is motor claim form, document A-7 to A-9 are estimates, document A-10 is Spare Price List, document A-13 is letter sent by the Insurance Company to the appellant/complainant.
9. The respondent/Insurance Company also filed documents. Documdent OP-1 is STATUS REPORT of Surveyor, Shri Shyam Chhabra, document OP-2 is reminder dated 01.02.2010 sent by the Insurance Company to the appellant/complainant.
10. In the case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through its Assistant Manager, Vidhi Prakosth v Vinay Kumar Pandey, 2014 (1) CPR 5 (NC), Honble National Commission observed thus :-
œ5. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The report submitted by the surveyor, Vijay and Co. Does mention that the original estimate for repair, including the cost of spare parts and labour had been estimated to be Rs.2,69,211/-. However, after thorough inspection of the vehicle, the surveyor had assessed the approximate net loss to be Rs.1,15,305/-, including the amount of Rs.31,500/- as total labour charges. A detailed description of damaged items / parts has been given in this report and it has also been stated that they had made comparison with the report of spot survey as well as the estimate of repairs given by M/s Subhash Motors. However, a perusal of the orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum indicates that they have not advanced any cogent reasons for differing with the report given by the surveyor. The impugned order of the State Commission makes a mention of the case decided by the National Commission, i.e., New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Deen Dayal Revision Petition No.68/2005, decided on 16.12.2008 as in which it was held that the report of the surveyor is an important document and cannot be brushed aside lightly without any material to the contrary on record. The National Commission set aside the order passed by the State Commission, saying that it was without rationale or basis.
6. It is interesting to observe, however, that even after quoting this judgment, the learned State Commission has not given any reasons for making a departure from the report of the surveyor. They have also not stated whether this was a case of total loss or not and whether the insured deserved to be compensated as per the IDV of the vehicle, stated in the Insurance Policy.?
11. In the instant case, Shri Shyam Chhabra, was appointed as Surveyor and he inspected the vehicle and gave his report. In his Survey Report it is mentioned thus :-
œDetails of damages as per the sport report :
01 W/S glass, both side door glass and side view mirror broken. 02. Cabin Rh door badly pressed, roof pressed, pillars bent. LH door and sheet suspected damaged. 03. Body RH side angles bent, LH side suspected damaged. 04. Chassis both long meber looking bent, bracket fitted in chassis cracked. 05. Radiator and intercooler damaged. 06. Oil sump pressed. 07. Front both side hanger / snackle seared off, spring leaf front both main broken. 08. I beam misalign. 09 Front right brake chamber pressed.
FINAL SURVEY FINDINGS :
1. Pressed / deshaped / broken.
Cabin on sides, roof and back rest, both doors of cabin, tie rod, load body pm rhs and lhs, fr. Lhs, shock up, front show panel mildly, w/s glass, both door glass, back rest cabin glass, side mirror lhs, air cleaner duct.
Missing parts :
Battery, stephy, wiper arm.
Remarks :
The insured has demanded for new load body and as per the nature of accident both side flaps of load body has been bent and misaligned and few vertical pipe structure has been bent/twisted. The load body side flaps are repairable i.e. it can be straightened and aligned and major damaged pip structure can be replaced. The insured was of the opinion to replace the metal sheet of side flaps in case it is to be repaired. We have considered reasonable amount for material of metal sheet and pipe structure, which may be replaced on the affected area as the replacement of entire length is not required in my opinion. The same was discussed with the insurers official Shri Gaurav also.
The insured has not dismantled the vehicle till date and not starting the repairers of vehicle and as sufficient time has been elapsed so we are issuing our status report with assessment prior to dismantling of the vehicle.?
12. Surveyor, Shri Shyam Chhabra, had inspected the vehicle in question and gave his survey report. Status Report of Surveyor, Shri Shyam Chhabra, is available in the record of District Forum as document OP-1.
13. The report of the surveyor is an important, valuable and reliable document and cannot be brushed aside lightly without any material to the contrary on record. Thus, it is clear that the Surveyors Report is admissible and according to the Surveyors Report, the appellant/complainant suffered loss of Rs.1,43,750/-. In the insurance policy, the value of the vehicle in question was mentioned as Rs.7,25,000/- at the time of the insurance, therefore, it is established that the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle in question is Rs.7,25,000/-.
14. In the instant case, learned District Forum, has awarded a sum of Rs.5,43,750/- to the appellant/complainant, which is higher than the loss assessed by the Surveyor and the respondent/Insurance Company, did not file any appeal before us against the impugned order. Therefore, the respondent/Insurance Company, has no right to challenge the award passed by the District Forum. The appellant/complainant has not been able to prove that the vehicle in question suffered total loss and it is also not established that the repairing cost of the vehicle was more than 75% of the Insured Declared Value of the said vehicle, therefore, it is just and proper to deduct 25% depreciation on the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle-. After deduction of 25% depreciation on the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle, the payable amount comes out to Rs.5,43,750/-. The District Forum also awarded compensation of Rs.5,43,750/- to the appellant/complainant. Therefore, the finding recorded by the District Forum, is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Commission.
15. In view of aforesaid, the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant being devoid of any merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.