9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission u/s 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 regarding payment by insurance company to vehicle owner for accident damages.
Details of the Judgment: 1. Background: The appellant, an insurance company, challenged an order directing payment to the vehicle owner for damages incurred in an accident involving a heavy motor vehicle. 2. Accident Details: The vehicle, loaded with potatoes, met with an accident resulting in the death of the driver. The complainant claimed expenses for repair and interest paid for a loan obtained for repairs. 3. Complaint and Response: The complainant alleged deficiency in service by the insurance company and claimed a specific amount. The insurance company disputed the claim and conducted multiple surveys to assess damages. 4. Survey Reports: Various survey reports were submitted by both parties, with discrepancies in the assessment of damages to the vehicle. The insurance company relied on approved surveyors' reports to justify their assessment. 5. Consumer Forum Decisions: The District Forum found deficiency in service by the insurance company and ordered payment to the complainant. The State Commission and National Commission upheld this decision. 6. Legal Arguments: The insurance company argued based on Section 64-UM(2) of the Insurance Act, 1938, emphasizing the binding nature of approved surveyors' assessments. 7. Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court rejected the insurance company's contentions, noting the extensive damages to the vehicle as per survey reports. The court highlighted discrepancies in the survey assessments and upheld the consumer fora's decision. 8. Interpretation of Law: The court explained the provisions of Section 64-UM(2) and clarified that while surveyor reports are essential for claim settlement, they are not conclusive and can be deviated from by the insurer. 9. Final Decision: The court upheld the consumer fora's decision to award payment to the complainant, considering actual expenses incurred and interest paid. The appeal by the insurance company was dismissed with costs imposed. 10. Conclusion: The court criticized the insurance company for pursuing frivolous litigation and upheld the lower courts' decisions in favor of the complainant.
|
