ARUN KUMAR 556, RADIO STATION LANE, NEAR A.I.R. JALANDHAR PUNJAB Vs. SADHU SINGH & ORS. VILLAGE AND PO MUCCHAL THE. BABA BAKALA AMRITSAR PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Revision Petitions, one by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (for short "the Insurance Company") and the other by its surveyor, namely, Arun Kumar, are directed against the order dated 26.7.2010, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") in FA/632/2004. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 7.4.2004 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No.490/2003. By the said order, while allowing the Complaint filed by Respondent No.1 herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in not reimbursing the total cost of the repairs, which had to be carried out on account of the accident of the insured vehicle, the District Forum had directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 77,447/-, i.e.,Rs. 93,547/- minus Rs. 16,100.00 already paid, against the claim with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint, i.e., 14.5.2003, till the date of payment along with cost of litigation, quantified at Rs. 500.00.

(2.) We may note at this juncture that while dismissing the Appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the State Commission has observed that the Insurance Company had been successful in procuring the wrong report of assessment from the surveyor with his connivance to harass the Complainant for the reasons best known to the surveyor as well as to the Insurance Company. The State Commission has also observed that the surveyor has been negligent in his task and has not given the correct report and assessed the loss as per the actual facts with a direction that this case shall be referred to the Chairman, Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA), the licence issuing Agency, for appropriate action against the surveyor so that in future he does not dare to act in such a way he has acted in the present case. It is against these observations/directions that the surveyor has preferred a separate Revision Petition (RP/3776/2010) praying for expunction of the said comments/observations.

(3.) Having heard Learned counsel for the Insurance Company and perused the documents on record, we are of the opinion that the Revision Petition filed by the Insurance Company is without any substance. It is evident from the documents on record that the Insurance Company had restricted the claim of the Complainant to Rs. 16,100.00 merely on the basis of the assessment made by the Surveyor. On a pointed query as to whether the bills submitted by the insured, for the expenses incurred on the repair of the vehicle, were found to be doubtful, Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has candidly admitted that there is no such finding in the report of the Surveyor. He, however, submits that in his report, the Surveyor had recorded reasons for not accepting the claim for the estimated cost of Transmission Assembly, amounting to Rs. 70,000.00, viz., "that the damage to the internal gears/synchronizing rings/gear changing forks and all shafts were in badly torn out/jammed condition because of the use of the vehicle even after the accident in question".