ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. K L SIVAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We do not see any merit in this appeal. The complainant purchased a Standard 2000 Motor car and had it insured with the opposite party. The period of cover was from 18.9.1992 to 17.9.1993. On 25.12.1992, there was an accident in which the said vehicle was damaged. The complainant made a claim to the opposite party who did not respond properly and hence the complaint was filed. The opposite party disputed the accident, in the sense, that according to them, the accident could not have happened in the manner stated by the complainant and that the nature of damage found on the vehicle would show that the vehicle has collided and hit against another vehicle. The other damages that were found were not caused by the external hit but due to the internal failure of components. Though the opposite party has taken such a stand, they did not choose to produce any material in the shape of evidence from an expert or a report from the expert. It is also not established that after the Surveyor inspected, they sent for an expert who examined the vehicle and had given the reasons and suggested that it could not have happened in the manner suggested by the complainant. The complainant has spent more than one lakh of rupees as seen from Exs. A-10 to A-12 series and Exs. A-15 and A-16 series. The fact that such a huge amount was incurred for the repair of the vehicle is not seriously challenged. It is no doubt true that the opposite party appointed two Surveyors, but the Surveyors admittedly did not examine the vehicle in the presence of the complainant. The workshop where the vehicle was sent for repair had also written under Ex. A-5 to the opposite party about the attitude adopted by the Surveyor. The complainant had also not chosen to take any steps to address the manufacturer to prove that the damage was caused by internal failure of components. Therefore, in the circumstances, the Lower Forum, after taking into consideration all the relevant facts, had come to the conclusion that the repudiation was unjustified. The Lower Forum has also come to the conclusion that the damage sustained to the vehicle was due to the accident and had not accepted the report of the Surveyor. The learned Counsel for the appellant is unable to point out any flaw in the order of the Lower Forum. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the complainant has not produced any material in shape of expert evidence cannot be accepted at all. When the opposite party is repudiating the claim, it is for the insurer to show that the cause for their repudiation is justified. The report from the Surveyor alone cannot be relied upon in such cases. There is something more needed when a particular statement is made and asserted. It is for them to establish the truth of the same. But they have failed to do so. Therefore, in such circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that there is deficiency in service and accordingly concur with the view taken by the Lower Forum.

(2.) Consequently, this appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs, confirming the order passed by the Lower Forum. Appeal dismissed.