NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. Vs. ROHIT SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) District Forum below while allowing complaint No. 70/2004 on 6.4.2005, has directed as under; - "7. In view of the foregoing reason, we hereby direct the OP -company to indemnify the complainant to the extent of Rs.1,29,323/ - along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the complaint, till actual payment is made. The litigation cost is quantified at Rs.1500/ -. These payments be made to the complainant by the OP -company within a period of forty five days from the date of receipt of copy of this order".

(2.) Vehicle being insured with the appellants, its having met with an accident and thereafter its having been got surveyed for the purpose of assessment of loss, is not in dispute . According to the Surveyor, since vehicle had been got repaired, therefore, items replaced by the respondent could not exceed Rs.59,260/ -. On the other hand stand of the respondent was that the vehicle was repaired at different workshops and he had incurred a sum of Rs.1,43,666.75 p on such repairs. On 18.4.2002, appellant No.2 informed the respondent that his claim has been approved in the sum of Rs.89,260/ - After service of legal notice dated 11.5.2004, respondent requested to pay the insurance claim. Instead of doing the needful, he was informed by the appellants vide letter dated 20.5.2004 that an amount of Rs.59,260/ - has been approved. He did not accept this amount and informed the appellants that he had submitted the repair bills in the sum of Rs.1,43,666/ -, as such sum of Rs.59,260/ - offered to him was not acceptable. There being deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice followed by the appellants, complaint was filed wherein after contest, impugned order has been passed.

(3.) Mr. Kanwar submitted that Chassis and Front Axle were second hand whereas Radiator was found repaired and pay load body was found to have been fabricated with old and new materials. Further, according to him, cost of the tyres should hot have been allowed and salvage also had not been deposited by the respondent, as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent by referring to the bills in question stated that his client has not claimed any tyres has not been allowed even by the District Forum below. So far non deposit of salvage is concerned, reference was made by Shri Kanwar to the letter dated 18.4.2004, Annexure R -5, with the reply of his clients. What is the position as on date, learned Counsel for the parties were not in a position to state anything in this behalf. Respondent has placed on record affidavits of the Workshop owners who had repaired the vehicle/supplied the parts etc. There is no rebuttal to these. Besides this, total value of the bills pertaining to repair etc. comes to Rs.1,38,323/ -.Cost of two tyres has been deducted by the District Forum below and the balance amount in the sum of Rs.1,29,323/ - has been held payable by the appellants to the respondent.