R SENGODAN Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the lower Forum. Admittedly, in this case, after the accident which took place in Assam, three Surveyors have inspected and submitted their report. Of the three, two examined the vehicle at the place of accident while the third examined the vehicle after it was repaired at a workshop in Salem.

(2.) THE lower Forum has held that as there are three reports and each contradicting the other and as questions arise as to what exactly was the nature of damage, the parties would better have the matter adjudicated by a Civil Forum.

(3.) IT is to be pointed out that the complainant without obtaining a consent and without informing the opposite party while in the process of settlement of claim was going on, has chosen to transport the damaged vehicle to Salem and repair the same to make it roadworthy. From Ex. B2, it is clear that the vehicle was completely repaired. Ex. B2 report is to the effect that the damage to the vehicle was only in respect of external parts and that the engine was not dismantled except for the renewal of head gasket. According to the opposite party, the first two reports of the first two Surveyors are totally incorrect and there are number of contradictions and, therefore, they had to appoint a third Surveyor since the report of the first two Surveyors could not thrown any light to the actual loss. In fact, it is pointed out that the first Surveyor Adhikari has written to say that the engine has been damaged beyond repair whereas the engine was in tact, only the head of gasket has been damaged. The second Surveyor has stated that Rs. 1,42,200/ - is required towards the cost of engine and assembly by including replacement of front axle assembly, cost of chassis frame and cost of fuel injector pump whereas those items have not been changed at all by the complainant. It is also pointed out that the damaged gear box has been replaced by an old gear box assembly whereas a sum of Rs. 41,100/ - has been included as cost of a new one by Surveyor Adhikari. Thus, according to the 3rd Surveyor, the vehicle has been repaired using same old major items and have been made roadworthy at a cost of Rs. 1,09,000/ -. The second Surveyor only surveyed the damage sustained and has suggested the cost of repairs. According to the opposite party, he has given an exaggerated value. Therefore, in that context, the lower Forum held that it is not possible to decide what exactly is the nature of damage and what are the parts that are completely damaged and what are the parts that are actually replaced. In other words, as regards the parts requiring total replacement, there has been contradictions in the reports of the Surveyors. Therefore, in that context, the lower Forum thought that it is a matter which has to be decided only by a Civil Forum. The complainant has not chosen to produce any materials nor has examined the person who carried out the repairs to prove the nature and extent of damages, the actual repairs effected and the parts replaced and whether they were replaced with new spares or with old parts renewed. Therefore, in that context, the lower Forum thought that it is a fit matter where the Civil Court has to adjudicate as it requires evidence from both sides. Considering the order of the lower Forum, we feel that there is no reason to hold that the order of the lower Forum is in any manner opposed to law of facts and that there is no material error at all in appreciation of the facts of the case.