Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sh. Pritam Kumar.

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Jun 16, 2022

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Structured Summary of Opinion — H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (F.A. No. 12/2019)

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from an order dated 28.11.2018 of the District Consumer Forum, Chamba, H.P., in Consumer Complaint No. 35/2018 (Pritam Kumar v. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.). The appeal (F.A. No. 12/2019) was presented on 07.01.2019, the order was reserved on 19.05.2022, and the State Commission delivered its order on 16.06.2022.

Brief facts as recorded in the opinion:

The complainant, Pritam Kumar, was the registered owner of a Pick Up vehicle bearing registration HP-73-5615.
The vehicle was insured with the appellant (Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.) under a policy effective from 18.12.2016 to 17.12.2017.
The vehicle met with an accident on 08.08.2017 at Satrund (Satrundi) Mod. Intimation was given and a GD entry No. 047 dated 09.08.2017 was lodged at Police Station Tissa, District Chamba.
The vehicle was repaired at an authorized service station and repair expenditure incurred amounted to Rs. 2,38,000/- (as per the complainant's bills).
The complainant submitted a claim to the insurer which was not settled; a legal notice dated 15.06.2018 was served, but the claim remained unsettled.
The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the insurer to pay Rs. 1,98,501/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint, Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation costs.
The insurer (appellant) aggrieved by that order preferred the present appeal to the State Commission.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the District Forum erred in declining to accept/appreciate the insurer's surveyor's report on the ground of the survey report not being signed, when the surveyor swore an affidavit corroborating his report.
Whether the complainant is entitled to recover the repair bills submitted (totaling higher amounts as per annexures) in preference to the amounts assessed by the surveyor(s).
Whether preliminary objections raised by the insurer regarding maintainability—namely, that the vehicle was driven without a route permit and fitness certificate and that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence—affected the insurer's liability in the claim (these were pleaded by the insurer).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's (Insurer) Arguments

The District Commission erred in not appreciating the surveyor's report on the ground that it was not signed; that factual point is incorrect because the respondent's written statement did not deny the surveyor's report and the surveyor provided an affidavit confirming he conducted the survey and that his report is genuine.
The District Commission relied upon various repair bills (Annexure-C6, C7, C9 to C13, C15 to C17) amounting to Rs. 1,98,501/- without admissible material evidence proving those bills (e.g., requisite affidavits or proof by the persons who raised the bills).

Respondent's (Complainant) Arguments

The surveyor's report is not binding on the complainant; the complainant is entitled to the claim raised on the basis of the bills from the authorized service centre.
The repair bills are from an authorized service repairer and the complainant is entitled to the amounts claimed in those bills.
The insurer's surveyor did not furnish reasons for discarding the bills raised by the complainant.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Commission reviewed the pleadings, evidence, and the record and made the following analytical findings (summary limited to the content of the opinion):

Undisputed factual foundation: It was accepted on record that the complainant owned the vehicle and that it was insured under the relevant policy for the period in question; the accident occurred on 08.08.2017 and the insurer was intimated.
Surveyors' appointment and assessments: The insurer appointed Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan as surveyor who assessed loss at Rs. 38,262/-. A second opinion surveyor, Mr. Rakesh Vaid, assessed the loss at Rs. 60,098/-. The appointment and assessment by the second surveyor were specifically admitted in the insurer's written reply (para 5(e)).
Admissions and sufficiency of denial: The complainant in the rejoinder did not specifically deny the appointment or the report of the second surveyor. The Commission observed that a simple or blanket denial (simples denial) in a rejoinder, without specific denial of the facts, was not sufficient; therefore the appointment and the surveyor's report amounted to an admission on the complainant's part.
Affidavit of the surveyor: The insurer produced an affidavit of the surveyor Er. Rakesh Vaid as Annexure OPW-2 in which the surveyor stated he was appointed, was familiar with the facts, and assessed loss at Rs. 60,098/-, and his survey report was filed as Annexure OP-5.
Effect of signature technicality: The Commission held that the District Forum erred in not appreciating the surveyor's report on record merely because of an issue about the surveyor report's signature; given the surveyor's affidavit, "the necessity of signing of surveyor report loses its significance."
On the repair bills: The complainant submitted photocopies of repair bills but failed to file affidavits (or direct evidence) from the person(s) who raised those bills to prove that the accidental vehicle was repaired by them and to verify the expenditure. The absence of such proof weakened the evidentiary value of those bills.
Assessment based on available, admissible material: In view of the record — primarily the surveyor's affidavit and report (Annexure OP-5) and the lack of admissible proof for the repair bills — the only reliable material on record showing the quantum of loss was the surveyor's assessment of Rs. 60,098/-. The Commission therefore accepted that figure as the proper measure of loss.

Holding and Implications

The Commission's final disposition and its immediate consequences are as follows:

HOLDING: The appeal (F.A. No. 12/2019) is disposed of with modification of the District Forum's award. The Commission held that the complainant/respondent is entitled to Rs. 60,098/- as assessed by the surveyor, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the complaint until realization. The insurer/appellant is also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation costs (as earlier directed by the District Commission).

Implications:

Direct effect on the parties: The District Forum's award of Rs. 1,98,501/- was modified downward to Rs. 60,098/-, but the awards for compensation (Rs. 10,000/-) and litigation costs (Rs. 5,000/-) were retained. Interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint is awarded on the Rs. 60,098/-.
The Commission reached this result based on the surveyor's report corroborated by the surveyor's affidavit and the absence of admissible proof supporting the repair bills submitted by the complainant.
No broader precedent or novel legal principle was announced by the opinion beyond the application of ordinary evidentiary considerations reflected in the record; the opinion does not state that it sets a new legal precedent.

Administrative Directions and Final Notes

The Commission directed that a copy of the order be sent to the parties and their counsel free of costs and that a certified copy be sent to the District Commission. The file of the State Commission is to be consigned to the record room after due completion. The appeal is recorded as disposed of and pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.

Source: Extracted solely from the provided opinion text of H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, F.A. No. 12/2019 (Order dated 16.06.2022).

Show all summary ...

H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION SHIMLA

----------------------------------------------------------------

First Appeal No. : 12/2019

Date of Presentation: 07.01.2019

Order Reserved on : 19.05.2022

Date of Order : 16.06.2022 ……

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Registered and Corporate Office E-8, EPIP, RIICO, Sitapura Jaipur, Rajasthan-302022 Through its Senior Legal Executive, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 178, 1^stFloor, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh. … Appellant/opposite party Versus

Sh. Pritam Kumar S/o Sh. Fakir Chand, R/o Mohalla and Post Office Sultanpur, Tehsil and District Chamba, H.P. …Respondent/complainant

Coram

Hon'ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President Hon'ble Ms. Sunita Sharma, Member Hon'ble Mr. R.K.Verma, Member

Whether approved for reporting?¹ For Appellant : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Tek Chand, Advocate. Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President

O R D E R

Instant appeal is arising from order dated 28.11.2018 passed by learned District Consumer Forum, Chamba, H.P. in Consumer Complaint No. 35/2018 title Pritam Kumar versus Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited.

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?

2. Brief facts stated are that complainant is registered owner of vehicle (Pick Up) bearing No. HP-73-5615 which was insured with opposite party w.e.f. 18.12.2016 to 17.12.2017. The vehicle in question met with an accident on 08.08.2017 at Satrund More. Intimation was given to the opposite party and GD entry No. 047 dated 09.08.2017 was lodged in Police Station Tissa, District Chamba. The vehicle was repaired from authorized Service Station. An amount of Rs. 2,38,000/- was incurred on the repairs. The complainant submitted his claim with opposite party, but the same has not been settled. Legal notice dated 15.06.2018 was served upon the opposite party, but his claim was not settled.

3. Opposite party contested the complaint by filing reply. Preliminary objections were taken regarding maintainability that the vehicle was being driven without route permit and fitness certificate. The driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant was asked to produce the vehicle for re-inspection after repairs and to provide repair bills, but he failed to do so. Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan was appointed surveyor who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 38,262/-. Thereafter, Mr. Rakesh Vaid was appointed as surveyor for second opinion who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 60,098/-. The complainant refused to accept the loss assessed by the surveyor and his claim was closed as no claim.

4. The complainant in reply to the complaint has filed rejoinder too.

5. Learned District Forum below partly allowed the complaint and directed opposite party to pay Rs.1,98,501/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental harassment etc. and Rs. 5000/- towards litigation costs.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Forum, Shimla, appellant preferred the present appeal.

7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel of the appellant has submitted that learned District Commission went wrong in non appreciating the surveyor's report on the ground that it is not signed by the surveyor, whereas factually it is incorrect. The respondent in his written statement has not denied this fact. Moreover, surveyor has given the affidavit to this effect that he has carried out the survey and report is the same. Therefore, non proving ipso facto goes. Learned counsel of the appellant has further submitted that the learned District Commission below relied upon the bills i.e. Annexure-C6, C7, C9 to C13, C15 to C17, which amounts to Rs.1,98,501/- and without having material evidence proved on record, awarded the amount as shown in the impugned order.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel of the respondent has submitted that surveyor report is not binding and the

claimant is entitled to the claim raised on the basis of the bills from the authorized service centre and learned District Commission below has rightly passed the impugned order. Learned counsel of the respondent has further submitted that bills raised are from the authorized service repairer and complainant is entitled to the same amount. Learned counsel of the respondent has further submitted that surveyor has not given reasons of discarding the bills raised by the complainant.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record carefully.

FINDINGS :

10. It is admitted fact appearing on the record that vehicle (Pick Up) bearing No. HP-73-5615 was owned by complainant which met with an accident on 08.08.2017 at Satrundi Mod. It is further not in dispute between the parties that the aforesaid vehicle was insured with Insurance company and same was covered under the policy w.e.f 18.12.2016 to 17.12.2017.

11. It is further coming on the record that intimation of the accident was given to the Insurance Company and consequently, the opposite party appointed Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan surveyor to inspect the spot who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 38,262/-. Insurance Company has appointed

second surveyor Mr. Rakesh Vaid who has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 60,098/-.

12. The opposite party in its written statement in para- 5 (e) of reply has specifically stated that Mr. Rakesh Vaid was appointed as second Surveyor who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 60,098/-. The said para 5 (e) of the reply is reproduced as under :-

" (e) That para No.5 (e) of the complaint is incorrect hence denied. After getting the intimation of accident the opposite party vide letter dated 14.08.2017 has intimated the complainant to provide claim from duly filled and signed, RC,Fitness, Permit, Driving Licence and copy of FIR to the opposite party within seven days from the date of receipt of this letter failing which it shall be presumed that you are not interested to pursue the claim but the complainant did not bother for the same and thereafter vide letter dated 12.09.2017 it is intimated to the complainant that Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan surveyor and Loss Assessor has been appointed as surveyor to inspect the spot and to report and also asked the complainant to file the documents listed in the letter within five days and the surveyor have given his report vide which loss was assessed to the tune of Rs. 38,262/-. Thereafter, on 18.12.2017 the complainant was asked to produce the vehicle for re-inspection and to provide repair bills within seven days from the date if receipt of letter failing which it will be presumed that you are not interested to pursue the claim but het complainant failed to do so and again vide letter

dated 12.01.2018 it was informed to the complainant that you have intimated the claim on 12.08.2017 and Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan was appointed to assess the loss who has assessed the loss on local rates for Rs. 38,262/- and we have appointed the second opinion surveyor Mr. Rakesh Vaid who have assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 60,098/- but you have not commenced the repair of vehicle and not produced the vehicle for inspection and not submit the dealer bill and it was requested to produce the vehicle for re-inspection and provide tax invoice bill within five days failing which it will be resumed that you are not interested to pursue the claim and we will conclude your claim as No Claim but the complainant refused to accept the loss assessed by the surveyor as such it was closed as No Claim being insured not agree with the amount."

13. The complainant in its rejoinder does not denied the factum of appointment of second surveyor Mr. Rakesh Vaid who has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 60,098/-.

14. The complainant simplicitor denial in its rejoinder ipso-facto is not sufficient for its denial unless the factum is specifically denied. In view of above stated facts, appointment of surveyor and report of surveyor amounts to admission on the part of the complainant.

15. The Insurance Company has filed the affidavit of surveyor Er. Rakesh Vaid as Annexure OPW-2 who has specifically stated in his affidavit that he was appointed as surveyor to investigate the OD claim of vehicle No. HP-73-

5615 and he is well conversant with the facts of the case and he has assessed the loss of the vehicle to the tune of Rs. 60,098/- and his survey report is Annexure OP-5.

16. District Forum below went wrong in non- appreciating the factum of the surveyor report on the record which is part and parcel of the affidavit Annexure OPW-2. Therefore, the necessity of signing of surveyor report loses its significance.

17. As per surveyor report the loss assessed is to the tune of Rs. 60,098/-.

18. The complainant has filed photocopy of repair bills and failed to file the affidavit of the person who raised the bills who could deposed that the accidental vehicle was repaired by him and the expenditure incurred on the repair of the vehicle.

19. In view of above circumstances, there is nothing on the record except surveyor report Annexure OP-5 which shows that loss occurred was amounting to Rs. 60,098/-.

20. Therefore, as discussed above, we are of the opinion that the loss occurred is amounting to Rs. 60,098/- as assessed and the complainant/respondent is entitled to the tune of Rs. 60,098/- as assessed by the surveyor. Consequently, order passed by District Commission below is modified to the extent that the complainant/respondent is

entitled to Rs. 60,098/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. The opposite party/appellant is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental harassment etc. besides Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs as directed by District Commission below.

21. A copy of order be sent to each of the parties and their counsel free of costs, as per Rules. Certified copy of order be sent to District Commission and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. F.A.No.12/2019 is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.

Justice Inder Singh Mehta

President

Sunita Sharma

Member

R.K.Verma