DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BOLANGIR
Present:-
1. Sri. D.K.Tripathy, President.
2. Smt. K.Rath, Member.
3. Sri. N.P.Joshi, Member.
Dated, Bolangir the 3rd day of December 2009.
C.D.C.No.38 of 2009
Pradeep Kumar Bhoi, age-35 year.
Son of Santosh Kumar Bhoi, Resident
of Bolangir town, (Behind Civil Court)
P.S/Dist- Bolangir.
Complainant
-Versus-
The Sr. Divisional Manager, The Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. At- Kumar and Kumar Building,
2nd Floor, Nayapara, Sambalpur, P.S/ Dist- Sambalpur.
Opp. Party
23.12.2009 ORDER
Smt. K. Rath, Member
1. The case of the complainant in the brief is that he insured his car Tata Indica DLS with the O.P. bearing Registration No. OR-03D-5676 vide policy No. 6701 valid from 9.3.2007 to 8.3.2008. An accident took place on 21.2.2008 and the vehicle was heavily damaged. The surveyor assessed the less at Rs 14,401/- which was later reduced to Rs 7,585/- but the complainant had incurred Rs 42,688/- for repairing the vehicle. Complainant prays for payment of Rs 42,688/- along with interest.
2. The O.P in its version has stated that after the accident Surveyor was appointed to assess the loss who assessed the loss at Rs 14,401/-. He reinserted the vehicle after its repair and the amount was reduced to Rs 7,585/- as the complainant repaired the R.H. front door of the vehicle instead of replacing it. And as the O.P has already sent the loss voucher amount of Rs 7,585/- to the complainant, the complain is liable to be dismissed.
3. We have gone carefully through the documents on record, and heard the advocates for both the parties.
4. The complainant insured with the O.P his Tata Indica DLS car on 21.2.2008 the vehicle met with an accident during the currency of insurance. He made a claim with O.P for a sum of Rs 42,688/- . The O.P. offered Rs 7,585/- only which was not acceptable to the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P the complaint is filled.
5. According to complainant, he is entitled to a sum of Rs 42,688/-. To claim this amount the complainant has filed certain bills obtained by the repairers. In this case the report of the Surveyor is the basis on which the assessment of damages has been arrived at Rs 14,401/-. There is no material placed by the complainant questioning the said report. In the absence of any evidence adduced by the complainant, it is not possible to hold that Surveyor’s report is either defective or the assessment made by him is perfunctory. In fact, the Surveyor has filed his calculation sheet giving the details as to how he arrived at the said figure. There is no material filed by the complainant disputing those figures. Therefore on seeing the bills filed by the complainant, it can not be held that the complainant has spent that much amount. Possibly, those bills might be excessive ones purposely obtained by the complainant.
6. The limited question therefore to be decided in whether the complainant is entitled to get Rs 14,401/- as compensation or is only entitled to get Rs 7,585/- as offered by the Insurance Company.
7. Admittedly, the Insurance Company had immediately after receiving information about the accident, has appointed Sri B.Patra, as Surveyor to assess the loss. He submitted his report on 9.6.2008 where he assessed the loss at Rs 14,401/-. In his report he had advised to replace the damaged R.H. front door of the car but the complainant instead of replacing it repaired it. Later, after repair Sri B.Patra again inspected the vehicle and made a report on 13.12.2008 where he assessed the cost of repair of the R.H.front door at Rs 1,200/- only and thereafter the O.P offered only a sum of Rs 7,585/-. Learned Advocate for the O.P. contended that the reason for deducting the balance amount of Rs 6,916/- is that the complainant did not replace the damaged R.H.front door but repaired it and as per the reinsertion report the amount spent by the complainant is only Rs 7,585/-. Therefore the complainant will be entitled only to that amount.
8. But we do not see any merit in this case of the O.P. It is not the case of the O.P that the Surveyor’s report assessing the damage at Rs 14,401/- is not correct. That being the reason it does not appear to be proper on their part to reduce their liability to Rs 7,585/- only because according to them the complainant has spent only that much amount in repairing. As per the terms of the policy the Insurance Company is bound to pay to the complainant the damages suffered by him and not the actual amount spent by him on the damaged vehicle. It is left to the complainant to repair the door or to replace the door. That has nothing to do with the liability of the O.P. Moreover, as per the surveyor’s report the R.H.front door of the vehicle was totally damaged but the Surveyor in his reinsertion report assessed only Rs 1,200/- for the repair whiles the repair of the door cost is much more. Therefore, the complainant would be entitled to the amount of Rs 14,401/- at least if not more.
Hence ordered;
The O.P. is directed to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs 14,401/- towards full and final claim together with interest 10% per annum from 21.4.2008 till payment, along with cost of Rs 500/-.
I Agree I Agree
Sd/- N.P. Joshi Sd/-K. Rath Sd/-D. K Tripathy
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT