9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 1012X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, `Act 1986') and affirmed the concurrent orders of State Commission for Redressal of Consumer Disputes, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (for short, `State Commission') and Resident Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Uttarkashi, (for short `District Forum') whereby the insurance company has been directed to pay a sum of ₹ 1,58,409/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the respondent Pradeep Kumar (for short `complainant'). 2. The complainant is the owner of a heavy motor vehicle (open body truck) bearing registration no. UP-07 F- 9095. The vehicle was registered on January 2, 1997 and was insured vide Policy No. 31/04825 effective for the period from November 8, 1997 to No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gain by another approved surveyor, B.B. Garg. B.B. Garg had estimated the damages to the vehicle to the extent of ₹ 63,771/-. The insurance company, then, approached the complainant for payment of this amount but he refused to accept the same. 5. It appears that before the District Forum, the complainant had filed the affidavits of the persons from whom the spare parts were purchased, repair work was got done and charges paid to them. The complainant also submitted the vouchers and bills of various spare parts and the payment made towards labour charges. On the other hand, on behalf of the insurance company, affidavit of one Pradeep Ghai was filed along with survey reports of Vivek Arora and B.B. Garg. 6. The District Forum, upon co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e complainant failed to make out any case as to why the survey reports of the Approved Surveyors Vivek Arora and B.B. Garg should be rejected. The learned counsel for the insurance company would also urge that the insurance company was not liable to indemnify for new parts. 10. We are unable to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the insurance company. That the vehicle that was insured with the insurance company met with an accident and fell down into the khud 300 feet deep below the road is not in dispute. The survey reports of Vivek Arora as well as B.B. Garg, upon which reliance has been placed by the insurance company show that the vehicle got extensively damaged in this accident. Its Assembly, Bonnet, Cabin, Tool Box, Bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Arora in his survey report made the following assessment for the reasons best known to him: "Total Labour Charges: ₹ 52,000.00 Total cost of spare parts ₹ 11,874.37 Less:Depreciation No.10% & 50% ₹ 3,669.58 Excess if any - Salvage value (Appx.) ₹ 1,000.00 Appx. Net Loss ₹ 59,304.82" 12. The insurance company got the survey done again through B.B. Garg (Approved Surveyor) who made an additional assessment of ₹ 3,512.72 to the assessment made by Vivek Arora. 13. On the face of the vouchers and bills for parts as well as labour charges submitted by the complainant, all the three consumer fora accepted the complainant's claim and did not accept these survey reports. Pertinently, the ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the approved surveyor (or loss assessor). In other words although the assessment of loss by the approved surveyor is a pre-requisite for payment or settlement of claim of twenty thousand rupees or more by insurer, but surveyor's report is not the last and final word. It is not that sacrosanct that it cannot be departed from; it is not conclusive. The approved surveyor's report may be basis or foundation for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured but surely such report is neither binding upon the insurer nor insured. 16. So far as the case in hand is concerned, the claim of the complainant has been accepted by the consumer fora as it was duly supported by original vouchers, bills and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
