NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. BIMAL KUMAR AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned District Forum, Purulia in Case No. 35 of 2002 on 26.4.2004 directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,41,686.00 to the respondent and also to pay Rs. 20,000.00 as compensation and Rs. 4,000.00 towards cost. Being aggrieved by the above order the present appeal has been preferred.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that a vehicle of the respondent bearing No. WB-37-8841 insured with the appellant Insurance Company who are covered under Policy No. 150503/2001/6321152 met with an accident on 14.4.2002. The local Police Station was duly informed of the accident by the respondent and the appellant had appointed one Mr. Hardev Singh as Surveyor for investigation. As per submission made by the respondent, the said Surveyor though initially agreed and asked the complainant to place the damaged vehicle in a local garage for repair, ultimately backed out to consider his claims for changing the chassis and dash-board allegedly due to the reason that the respondent refused to pay him speed money as demanded by the Surveyor. The respondent thereafter wrote to the appellant in the above matter and the appellant had ultimately sent a second Surveyor Mr. Krishnendu Chell. However, when the second Surveyor reached the place the repair works were almost completed, and therefore, he did not have the opportunity to examine whether the above two vital parts of the truck should be replaced or not. He finally suggested that replacement was not necessary as these parts could be repaired. The respondent had incurred a total expenditure of Rs. 2,49,686.00 towards repair and sent the bill to the appellant Insurance Company for re-imbursement. But the appellant had allowed only Rs. 60,361.00 towards such cost. The respondent declined to accept the amount and filed a complaint before the learned Forum.

(3.) The 1st Surveyor inspected the vehicle on 16.4.2002 and then again on 20.4.2002. In their letter dated 13.5.2002 the respondent requested the Surveyor to finalise the matter, but the Surveyor apparently took no action on the above. The complainant further stated that due to dilatory tactics resorted to by the Surveyor and the O.P./appellant to put pressure upon the complainant he was subjected to substantial financial loss since the date of accident. Since the visit of the Surveyors the complainant/respondent had sent two letters dated 17.5.2002 and 25.5.2002 urging upon the appellant to settle the matter early. On 25.6.2002 the respondent again sent a letter to the appellant to depute a Surveyor for inspection of the vehicle and salvage. Having failed to elicit due response from the appellant he ultimately filed a complaint before the learned Forum. In the written objection filed before the learned Forum the appellant contended that after a thorough inspection the Surveyor had assessed a loss at Rs. 61,800.00 along with 50% depreciation of the value of some parts and thus a total loss was precisely as Rs. 67,361.00. They further stated that the complainant had insisted the Surveyor to replace the dash-board and the chassis which could otherwise be repaired and made roadworthy. It has also been stated by the appellant that the Surveyor also obtained the opinion of Works Manager, French Motor Car Co. Ltd., Asansol who after inspection of the vehicle opined that the damage in dash-board cowl could be repaired. They contended that the repair works done by the complainant was much beyond the Surveyor s Report. The appellant had also sent another Surveyor Mr. Krishnendu Chell who also opined that both the dash-board and the chassis could be put to use by repairing.