PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,J. - (1.) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition claiming the following relief :- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of petitioner that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:- I. The order/award dated 10.11.2017 (Anx.6) passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Jodhpur in Claim Case No.94/2017 may kindly be set aside to the extent that the claim petition as filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed in toto."
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown that the actual expenses incurred by the petitioner were Rs.44,250/- and even as per the table, after deducting 40% depreciation, the petitioner is entitled for the remaining amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order/award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is based on surveyor's report. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Uma Polymers Ltd. and Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.500/2019) decided on 23.1.2019, the relevant para 10 whereof reads as below :- "32. This Court finds that the Permanent Lok Adalat, while passing the order impugned, has taken into account "Nil Depreciation Without Excess" clause and has also considered the general exceptions which are given in the Insurance Policy. This Court finds that the Permanent Lok Adalat has not committed any error while coming to the conclusion that the respondent -insured was liable to be paid the repair charges which were incurred due to the incident which had taken place. 34. This Court finds that the Insurance Company has not produced any evidence/proof that the vehicle was used or an effort was made after it had stopped. The reliance only on the statement or observation of the Surveyor that the insured had made forceful efforts to run the vehicle and as such, he disallowed the claim, this Court finds that only on surmises and conjectures, if the report is prepared by the Surveyor that the vehicle was forcefully run, such report cannot have much weightage for considering the claim of the insured. 36. This Court finds that the report of the Surveyor is just narrating about the incident or damage which is caused to the engine or other important parts. It is not understandable as to how, the damage was caused to the several parts of the engine and connecting rod, pistons, resonators and all were affected and were not in a proper position to move the car. 37. This Court finds that the Apex Court has laid-down the law that the terms of the contract or the conditions which are agreed thereto are required to be strictly followed and no assistance can be sought from other sources. This Court finds that there is no quarrel on the said proposition which has been laid down by the Apex Court. However, in the present facts of the case, the policy itself provides that if there is a loss or damage to the vehicle in certain contingencies, the Insurance Company has to indemnify the insured against the loss or damage. 39. This Court on close scrutiny of the facts on the aforesaid case before the Apex Court and considering the principle of law laid-down, finds that if there are legitimate reasons for departing from the report, the inference can be drawn by the Courts, as to whether such report will be a final word or not."
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent insurance company submits that learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any glaring wrong in the Surveyor's report. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case of H.C. Saxena. vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. reported in (2012) CPJ 420 (NC), relevant paras 10 and 11 whereof read as follows :- "10. Besides the above observations, the official surveyor has also given comparative assessment in respect of each item in his report which would indicate as to why the extent of damage, according to him is to the tune of Rs.42,276/- only. In such a situation, it was for the petitioner to furnish necessary information to the official surveyor deputed by the respondent-company. We do not see anything wrong in the petitioner to have approached a surveyor to assess the loss but it does not mean that the information required by the other Surveyor officially deputed by the insurance company in terms of the provisions of law should not be furnished. In fact, when the complainant/petitioner had already received the report of the first surveyor and was in the know of the basis of assessment, he was in a better position to convince the official surveyor to assess the loss in the manner which the complainant considered appropriate but rather than doing so, he chose to simply rely on the report of the private Surveyor. The District Forum committed grave error in discarding the assessment done by the official surveyor without giving adequate reasons for such a view. We agree with the counsel for the respondent that the report of the Surveyor appointed under the provisions of law is an important document and cannot be brushed aside without any compelling evidence to the contrary. 11. In the circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the State Commission. The revision petition, therefore, stands dismissed with no order as to costs." ;