UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. P DURAIPANDIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the opposite party, Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company against whom an award has been passed by the District Forum, Ramanathapuram. The complainant had insured his lorry with the opposite party. During the currency of insurance, on 21.7.1994, the lorry met with an accident. As per the averments in the complaint, when the lorry was going from Sudiyur towards Parthibanoor at a moderate speed, suddenly a child came across. To avoid hitting at the child, the lorry was turned towards the side and it was then hit at a palm tree. The lorry was heavily damaged in the cabin, wooden parts, bonnet and mudguard. A report was given to the police. The complainant approached M/s. A. B. T. for repairing the lorry and they gave a quotation for Rs.70,000 /- While so, the opposite party Insurance Company obtained a report prepared by a Surveyor of them by name Mr. Manimuthu. But, suppressing this fact, the opposite party repudiated the claim made with them by the complainant. On account of this repudiation, the complainant had suffered monetary loss and mental agony. On these allegations, the com- plaint has been filed.

(2.) The opposite party in its written version, denied the circumstances alleged in the com- plaint as to how the accident occurred and also the alleged damages. It contended that immediately after the report of the accident, they appointed a Spot Surveyor just to note down the external damages caused to the vehicle and not for assessing the loss. If any opinion as to the value of the damage was given by the Spot Surveyor that will not be binding on the opposite party Insurance Company. After the vehicle was removed to the repairer's workshop, one Mr. Srinivasan, an independent Surveyor was appointed. That Surveyor has given his report stating that the damage caused to the bumper and in the centre bonnet are relevant to the cause stated in the claim form. He has stated that there was no damage in the cowl and cabin and he has also stated that the main item of the claim viz. , crack in the chassis number was at the right hand side and this was not due to the accident in question. He has further stated that the cost of repair of other items of damage would be Rs.750/-. As per the policy, the opposite party will be liable to pay damages only if it exceeds Rs.1,500/-. This has been conveyed to the complain- ant. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The District Forum, on consideration of the pleadings and evidence, came to the conclusion that the repudiation of the claim by the opposite party is wrong and it amounts to deficiency in service. The District Forum passed an award directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.70,000/- as repair charges, Rs.15,000/- for loss of income and Rs.15,000/- for mental agony. It also ordered the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- as costs.