Decided on January 19,2006

Ramavtar Agrawal Respondents


- (1.)THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1986") has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 29.12.2001 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur -I, Jaipur in Case No. 192/99 by which the complaint filed by the complainant -respondent under Section 12 of the Act of 1986 was partly allowed in the manner that the appellant was directed to pay to the complainant respondent a sum of Rs. 1,75,000 along with interest @ 12% p.a. with effect from 1.7.1998 till realization and Rs. 2000 as cost of litigation and mental agony.
(2.)IT may be stated here that the vehicle No. DL -1 P -305 was not insured by the complainant -respondent with the appellant -Insurance Company for Rs. 4 lacs for the period from 25.11.1997 to 24.11.1998 and on 13.3.1998, the said vehicle met with accident on the National Highway No. 8 near Railway crossing, as a result of which it was damaged. Therefore, for the damages caused to the vehicle in question, the complainant -respondent preferred a claim before the appellant and upon this, the appellant appointed Surveyor Shri A.K. Sanghi, who submitted his report on 27.4.1998 in which he gave the following opinion:
"On executive level the matter was discussed with insured. After lot of arguments and discussions on the matter it was agreed that insurance s maximum liability will be Rs. 1,75,000. Insured did not agree and stressed for net loss settlement for Rs. 2,25,000. We after analysing the fair under policy which we worked out and pacified him is fair and reasonable which after resistance agreed. Insured explained that during strike period he made efforts for spot survey which we did not get on record. The matter before us is concluded....."

(3.)DISSATISFIED with the report of the Surveyor A.K. Sanghi dated 27.4.1998, the appellant Insurance Company appointed another Surveyor Er. Swadesh Kumar Dhamija and Associate, who submitted the report on 31.3.1999 in which amount of loss was assessed on repair basis to the tune of Rs. 91,813.00 and following opinion was given:
"pp 31 says an agreement at cash loss settlement for Rs. 1,75,000.00 and pp 38 that meetings were held in JRO and loss settled. We can only say that the Cash loss settlement is an agreed settlement. But looking to the damages as described in details by the spot Surveyor this was not a case worth cash loss settlement, absolutely not on the amount confirmed and surely not considering the chassis replacementWe repeat the spot says only misalligned.

Thereafter, since the claim was not settled by the appellant Insurance Company, therefore, a complaint was filed by the respondent -complainant before the District Forum, Jaipur -I, Jaipur.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.