NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, THE MALL SOLAN Vs. JOHNY MEHTA VILL. SIRINAGAR, P.O. & TEHSIL, KANDAGHAT, DIST. SOLAN, H. P. 173215

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 07.09.2007, passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission ") in two cross appeals, appeal no. 119/2005, Johny Mehta Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and appeal No. 183/2005, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Johny Mehta , vide which, the appeal filed by the complainant was allowed and the award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla in consumer complaint no. 85/2013, dated 02.04.2005, allowing the said complaint, was modified. The other appeal no. 183/2005 filed by the Insurance Company was rejected.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondent Johny Mehta stated in his consumer complaint filed before the District Forum that he purchased a 41-seater bus, bearing no. HP13 0334 in the year 1997 to earn his livelihood and the said bus was insured for a sum of Rs. 6,50,000.00 with the petitioner/OP National Insurance Company for the period from 22.11.2000 to 21.11.2001. The said vehicle met with an accident on 27.10.2001 at Nagali Pool near Solan, Himachal Pradesh. An FIR with regard to the incident was lodged with the police and the Insurance Company was also intimated. The Insurance Company appointed a surveyor who asked the complainant on 14.12.2001 to submit the requisite documents. The complainant contacted M/s. Sutlej Motors Ltd., Jalandhar, who informed him that the vehicle was not in a repairable condition. It is stated in the consumer complaint that M/s. Sutlej Motors Ltd. issued an estimate of Rs. 3,50,920.00, excluding excise duty for the proposed fitting of the bus body. Another estimate of Rs. 2,60,520.00 was also supplied for the repair of engine and the related mechanical jobs. The case of the complainant is that the Insurance Company should have paid the claim, treating it as a case of total loss. However, the surveyor appointed by the Company, Rajesh Kumar, stated in his report that the vehicle was repairable and that the complainant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,14,082.00 on repair basis. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking direction to the Insurance Company to pay the assured sum of Rs. 6.5. lakhs along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of accident and also to compensate him with a sum of Rs. 7,65,000.00 @ Rs. 45,000.00 per month, since the date of incident.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the Insurance Company by filing a reply before the District Forum, in which they stated that Kuljeet Singh Baweja conducted spot survey on 28.10.2001 and submitted his report on 20.11.2001. Thereafter, the Insurance Company asked the complainant to submit estimate of repair so that the survey of vehicle could be conducted. Rajesh Kumar, surveyor and loss assessor was then appointed to assess the loss, who submitted his report on 27.05.2002. The OP stated that despite repeated requests and letters written by the surveyor to the complainant, they did not cooperate with him. The Insurance Company stated that they found the complainant entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,14,082.00, based on the report of the surveyor and hence, there was no deficiency in service on their part.