IRSHAD HUSSAIN,PRESIDENT - (1.) BOTH these appeals, one by the insured and another by the insurer, assail the propriety of the order dated 24.4.2007 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in Consumer Complaint No. 57 of 1997, Prem Chand Sadana v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The dispute centres around the quantum of the compensation or damages payable to the insured by reason of the accident of the insured vehicle. By the impugned order, compensation of Rs. 1,30,000 was awarded and the insured was directed to produce the vehicle for inspection by the insurer and also to return the salvage, if any, retained by him. Insured in his appeal urged that the District Forum fell in error in not awarding the interest and further amount of the compensation for mental agony and harassment for not settling the claim. He also challenged the propriety of the conditions attached with the grant of compensation. The insurer, however, by way of its appeal, claimed that the compensation awarded is exorbitant and contrary to the assessment of the damage made by the Surveyor and, therefore, prayed for reduction of the compensation payable to the insured.
(2.) WE have heard the learned attorney for the complainant and the learned Counsel for the insurer and carefully considered the material on record in the light of the facts and legal aspects of the case.
(3.) A bare reading of the impugned order would support the contention of the insurer that the finding in regard to the quantum of compensation of Rs. 1,30,000 payable to the insured, is itself contrary to the observation and opinion formed by the District, Forum and, as such, the quantum of compensation awarded can safely be held to be unjust and improper. The reason being that the District Forum observed that although the insured claimed that sum of Rs. 1,30,000 had been spent in getting the accidental vehicle repaired, but the insured had neither submitted estimate of the repairs, nor any bills/cash memos of the amount paid towards the repair, etc. of the vehicle. It does not stand to reason as to how despite such a blatant observation about the lack of sufficient evidence to justify the claim for compensation of Rs. 1,30,000, the District Forum later on went on to observe that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, when there is deficiency in service of the insurer, the insured is entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,30,000. Learned attorney for the insured urged that the estimates of the repairs of the vehicle were submitted to the Surveyor, who has in his report dated 5.11.1996 (Paper Nos. 20 to 25 on the record of the complainant's appeal), given the details of the papers submitted including the estimate of M/s. Neema Motor Workshop, Dehradun. Mere submission of the estimates of the repairs would not prove that the amount as per estimate had in fact been spent in the repairs of the vehicle. The insured was asked by the insurer vide letter dated 16.11.1996, 16.1.1997, 5.3.1997, 30.4.1997 and 20.5.1997 (Paper Nos. 46, 48 to 51 on the record of the insurer's appeal) to submit final bills/receipts/cash memos among other papers in order to settle the claim, but no such documents were submitted by the insured. The averment of the complaint is to the effect that the complainant could not have the vehicle repaired for about three months for want of any decision at the end of the insurer. This mean that the repair of the vehicle had been undertaken by the complainant and that being so, he was legally obliged to submit the final bills/cash memos and receipts as called for in order to have the claim settled. Considering the material on record, we are not inclined to accept the submission of the learned attorney for the insured that the quantum of compensation was required to be assessed on the basis of the estimates of the repairs submitted to the insurer. In turn, we could not agree with the quantum of compensation assessed by the District Forum at Rs. 1,30,000 merely on the basis of the estimates submitted by the insured.;