NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. GOURI SHANKAR AGARWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE National Insurance Company Limited is the appellant here and has challenged the judgment and order of the District Forum, Cuttack dated 3.2.1998 passed in C.D. Case No. 391 of 1996. The respondent No. 1 to this appeal was the complainant and filed complaint claiming insurance claim of Rupees 35,144 and interest thereon, which was reduced by the opposite parties Insurance Company to Rupees 17,700 only, and this action of the Insurance Company was termed to be deficiency in service.

(2.) THE undisputed facts before the learned District Forum as we find from the judgment, are as under: The complainant is the owner of a Maruti 800 car bearing registration No. OIU -2500 and he insured it with the opposite party No. 1 and the policy was in force at all the relevant time. On 18.1.1993, the car while on its way to Bhubaneswar met with an accident on the Cuttack Bhubaneswar National. Highway and got damaged. On the same day, information was lodged at Cuttack Sadar Police Station and intimation was sent to the Insurance Company, specifically opposite party No. 1. On 20.1.1993, opposite party No.1 sent the claim form to the complainant for submission after filling up its relevant columns. On 22.1.1993, complainant submitted the filled -up form to opposite party No.1 and the complainant also obtained estimate of repairs from Maruti Udyog Limited and sent the same to opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No.1 in its turn deputed a Surveyor to assess the loss. The Surveyor inspected the vehicle at different stages of repair and submitted his report to opposite party No.1. On 19.5.1993, complainant sent the bills of Maruti Udyog Limited to opposite party No.1 and he assessed the loss at Rupees 17,700. Taking into account the depreciation value of the different accessories used in the vehicle. Series of correspondences followed between the parties and the complainant/ respondent protesting to the mode of assessment adopted by the opposite party No.1 filed the complaint.

(3.) THE opposite parties filed a joint written version and pleaded therein that the Surveyor inspected the vehicle in the garage on 25.1.1993, 17.2.1993 and 29.3.1993, submitted his report dated 31.3.1993 to the opposite parties on 12.5.1993 and on 13.5.1993 the opposite party No. 1 requested the complainant to submit cash memos and bills on furnishing details of assessment of the Surveyor to him. The opposite parties sought clarification as to how bill for purchase of spare parts was raised after final bill for labour charges was submitted. Opposite parties also pleaded that the Surveyor assessed the loss after discussing with the complainant and the opposite parties settled the claim at Rupees 17,700 taking into consideration the Surveyor s assessment, documents filed by the complainant and the conditions of the policy. Competency of the complaint has been questioned on the ground that no such complaint should have been filed after settlement of the claim which was done with due care and application of mind. It is further alleged that there was no cooperation extended by the complainant whenever he was called for discussion and so finally opposite parties informed the complainant to accept the amount settled and on his failure to do so to treat the claim as No Claim . Lastly, it is stated by the opposite parties that the complainant since has not accepted the amount settled and there is quantum dispute, the complaint should be dismissed as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.