UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. KULWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by United India Insurance Company Ltd. against order dated 22.9.1994 of District Forum, Basti in Complaint Case No.163 of 1994. By this order the appellant-Company has been directed to pay certain amounts to the complainant who had lodged a claim in respect of an accident that took place on 23.2.1992 to a truck which was insured with the appellant Company.

(2.) The case of the complainant was that after the aforesaid accident to the truck which took place during the currency of a valid insurance policy obtained from the appellant-Company a claim was lodged with the Company and after getting the spot inspection report from the Surveyor, Sri Rajesh on 27.2.1992 the Company appointed Sri K. P. Singh Chauhan as a Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who gave his report on 23.4.1992 assessing the loss at Rs.1,51,268/-. The complainant says that the Insurance Company for some ulterior motives did not accept this report and appointed another Surveyor, Sri B. N. Tewari, who made his report on 4 October, 1992. Inspite thereof another Surveyor Sri Vinod Pal was appointed by the Company who ultimately gave report acceptable to the Insurance Company on 18.7.1993. The Company communicated to the complainant through its letter dated 23.11.1993 offering a sum of Rs.98.042/- only as the amount payable to the complainant in respect of the claim. Since there was deficiency in service on the part of the Company which had illegally refused to accept the report made by Sri K. P. Singh Chauhan and had drastically reduced the amount of loss by obtaining a subsequent report from Sri Vinod Pal, the necessity for tiling the complaint for redressal of the grievance aross for him.

(3.) The case of the Company, briefly, before the District Forum has been that there were some glaring defects found in the report of Sri K. P. Singh Chauhan so that verious queries were made from him through letters sent in the months of May and June, 1992 and since the reply to those queries were not satisfactory another Surveyor and Loss Assessor Sri Vinod Pal had to be appointed. The Company also asserted that Sri B. N. Tewari was appointed to find out only whether repairs had actually taken place to the truck as claimed by the complainant or not and not for any other matter. It has also been pleaded that in his report dated 18.7.1993 Sri Vinod Pal has given reasons for disagreeing with the assessment made by Sri K. P. Singh Chauhan and further that taking into account the assessment made by Sri Vinod Pal a sum of Rs.98,042/- was offered to the complainant which he did not accept. It is said that there was no deficiency on the part of the Insurance Company in these circumstances.