NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. V K GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 31.5.1993 passed by District Consumer Forum, Meerut in Complaint Case No.521/1993. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant claimed compensation against the Insurance Company for damages which caused to his vehicle. It is alleged that the complainant got his Maruti car No. DDB 7351 insured with opposite party No.1, National Insurance Company Ltd. The cover note was issued on 20.1.1990 and the period of insurance was upto 19.1.1991. This car met with an accident on 11.8.1990 for which opposite party was informed. The opposite party deputed Sri D. K. Varshney, Surveyor who conducted a spot survey and submitted a claim for the damages sustained by him on account of accident to the car. Sri R. K. Singhal was appointed as Surveyor by the Insurance Company who inspected the damaged vehicle and confirmed the damages. After the repairs, the vehicle was re-inspected by one Sri Subhash Chand who was also appointed as Surveyor. Thereafter the complainant provided all the papers with respect to the damaged car and co-opperated with the Insurance Company for settlement of the claim, but the Insurance Company did not settle the claim which shows deficiency in service on their part.

(2.) The complainant suffered a loss of Rs.60,000/- on account of damages caused to the car and the opposite party is liable to pay the same alongwith 24% per annum interest from the date of accident to the date of payment. He has also claimed special damages of Rs.25,000/- for mental pain etc.

(3.) The opposite party, Insurance Company, contested the claim and admitted that the Surveyors were appointed by it for assessing the loss. It is further alleged that Maj. S. R. Anand was also deputed to re-assess and investigating the claim of the complainant who submitted his report on 25.6.1991. It is wrong to say that the claim was settled. The complainant was informed about the Surveyors and Investigator's report and as such there is no deficiency in service provided by the Insurance Company. It was informed to the complainant that the claim is not payable for the reason that there is no satisfactory proof furnished by the complainant of having got the vehicle damaged. The complainant is not entitled to claim any amount as alleged.