NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. MANJIT SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by National Insurance Company (in short 'the appellant') against the order dated 6.6.2005 of the District Consumer Disputes RedressalForum, Amritsar (in short the 'District Forum') by which the complaint of the complainant/respondent (hereinafter called as "respondent") was accepted by the District Forum.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent was having Indica DLE Car bearing Registration No. PB -02 -AC -4113, Chassis No.20360 and Engine No. 20420 registered with the office of the District Transport Officer, Amritsar. As per respondent, this vehicle was duly insured with the appellant through insurance policy No. 2001/8100453 from 15.6.2001 to 14.6.2002 vide cover note No. 690620 dated 15.6.2001 after paying premium of Rs. 11,766. The respondent had further alleged that in the last week of June, 2001, while he was coming from Batala Road towards city side, his vehicle went in a pit on the road outside Vijay Nagar Police Post which was full of rainy water at that time. The engine of the car stopped due to sudden jerk and thereafter the car was pushed out from the water with the help of passers -by. Thereafter the respondent tried to start the car but the sound of the engine changed and the respondent had taken the car to the office of the appellant and informed the Branch Manager regarding the accident. The Branch Manager had appointed a Surveyor and instructed the respondent to take the car to the workshop of Cargo Motors which was the approved workshop of Tata Automobiles. It was further alleged that Surveyor appointed by the appellant had carried out inspection of the car and had also taken photographs of the damaged parts. After that he instructed the Cargo Motor Workshop to repair, the vehicle and replace damaged parts of the car. Cargo Motors repaired the car. Total amount of Rs. 28,000 was spent on the repair. The respondent had received a registered letter from the Surveyor V.K.Mehta Associates demanding claim form duly filled and signed along with R.C. and driving licence which he furnished to the Surveyor. All the requisite documents of the claim were handed over to the Surveyor but he had heard nothing from the office of the appellant regarding the fate of his claim despite service of A.D. notice dated 30.10.2003. This notice was replied by Sh. P.N. Khanna, Advocate of the appellant on 18.11.2003 there by denying the claim of the respondent. The respondent prayed for direction to the appellant to pay the claim amount of Rs. 28,000 spent by the respondent on repair of his car and Rs. 50,000 as compensation with Rs. 5,000 as litigation expenses.

(3.) ON notice, appellant appeared and filed written version in which it had taken certain preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint was not legally maintainable as the respondent had failed to place on record any cogent and convincing material in order to substantiate the allegations regarding the claim. It was submitted that Mr. V.K. Mehta of V.K.Mehta Associates was deputed as Surveyor who inspected the vehicle in question, who submitted his detailed survey report dated 20.12.2001 and recommended that the claim may be filed as 'no claim'. It was submitted that even the statement of the insured was also recorded and in the said statement, insured had stated that the car was stopped in rain water but when the same was started it was running in good condition but on the next day some noise started coming from the engine. Therefore, loss was not due to accidentbut it was considered to be consequential or due to some mechanical failure which was not covered under the scope of insurance policy. On merits, allegations contained in the complaint were denied and controverted. It was submitted that insurance claim of the respondent was filed as 'no claim' on the basis of the report of the Surveyor. The appellant had prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.