Insurer not paid claim amount on engine, the NCDRC held that it is payable

UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SHEELA DEVI & 2 ORS.
DATED 18 FEBRUARY, 2020
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE RESOLUTION COMMISSION

HELD THAT- Insurer not paid claim amount on engine, the NCDRC held that it is payable.

BRIEF FACTS

1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.09.2019 in Appeal No. 652 of 2019. This appeal was filed by the petitioners challenging the order of the District Forum dated 20.06.2019 in complaint no. 603 of 2017 of respondent no.1

2. The vehicle of the complainant was insured with the petitioner and met with an accident and got damaged. It was towed to the service centre. Information of the accident was given to the petitioner.

3. A surveyor was appointed. Surveyor initially on the basis of damages noticed by the service station gave its report. Subsequently, it was found that the vehicle could not be started after repair of the body of the vehicle.

4. On examining the vehicle's engine to ascertain the reason, the service station found that engine had also got damaged and that is why the vehicle was not starting.

5. The surveyor was informed and same surveyor was directed to do the inspection of the engine as well. Surveyor submitted its report whereby it opined that damage to the engine of the vehicle was not due to the accident.

6. Claim for the repair of the damage to the outside of the body of the vehicle was admitted. However, the complainant was aggrieved of rejection of claim towards the damage to the engine and filed a complaint.

7. The parties led their evidences before the District Forum and on the basis of evidences led by the parties, the District Forum reached to the conclusion that damage to the body of the vehicle and to the engine was due to the accident.

8. In the appeal before the State Commission, claim for repair of the body of the vehicle was admitted. The claim of the complainant for damage to the engine was disputed. Same plea was taken that damage to the engine was not caused by the accident.

9. In the present revision petition, petitioner has not disputed its liability towards the damage to the body of the vehicle but has submitted that claimant is not entitled for any damage to the engine since the engine did not get damaged in the accident. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that surveyor report has clearly opined this fact.

THE DECISION OF NCDRC

10. We have perused this file. The jurisdiction of this Commission under section 21 (b) is limited. In catena of judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that findings of the Fora below can be disturbed only when the petitioner is able to show that findings are perverse or given without any jurisdiction or in exercise of wrong jurisdiction or fora below had exceeded its jurisdiction.

11. This Commission is not required to re-appreciate and re-assess the evidences and substitute its own opinion to the findings of facts of the case, especially when there are concurrent findings of facts.

It has been so held by the Honble Supreme Court in " Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - (2011) 11 SCC 269", which is as under:

"23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora".

12. Again in "Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286," the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the same principle and has held as under:

"17. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons."

13. In T.Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. N.Madhava Rao and Ors. decided on 05.04.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3408 of 2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"12. When the two Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact against the Plaintiffs, which are based on appreciation of facts and evidence, in our view, such findings being concurrent in nature are binding on the High court. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provision of law or against the pleading or evidence or are found to be perverse, a case for interference may call for by the High Court in its second appellate jurisdiction."

14. Counsel has argued that since the Fora below had ignored the opinion of the surveyor on the issue of damage to the engine in the accident, the findings are perverse and are liable to be set aside. He has relied on the following paragraph of the surveyor report. :

"RECOMMENDATION After inspection of subject vehicle, a supplementary estimate of Rs.2,87,800/- dated 26.08.2017 was provided. After discussion with Repairer vehicle was again inspected but damages sustained to the vehicle in question were frontal impact damages and engine had not sustained any accidental damages and later estimate was provided for the loss to the engine of vehicle which were not related to the accidental damage.

Damages relevant with cause of loss were assessed as per policy terms and conditions."

15. NCDRC has perused the report of the surveyor. Although he has used the expression 'damage to the engine' but in his report, he has not mentioned the nature of the damage, the engine had suffered. Moreover, from the report of the surveyor, it cannot be discerned if he had actually inspected the engine. There is no basis for him to give the opinion that engine had not suffered accidental damage. Unless nature of damage suffered by the engine find place in its report and then on the basis of those noticed damages he concludes that such type of damages cannot be sustained in an accident , this opinion is nothing but an opinion not based on facts and are thus baseless.

16. The opinion of survey or is not sacrosanct.

17. In case the opinion of the surveyor has no basis, it can be outrightly rejected. The Foras below have correctly rejected this piece of evidence and on the basis of other evidences on record reached to the conclusion that damage to the engine was caused by the accident. It is admitted fact that when the vehicle met with an accident, it was running on the road and after the accident, it had to be towed to the service station. At service station, after the repair of its body, the engine could not be started. These facts are sufficient to assess that damage to the engine had been caused due to the accident.

10. The NCDRC found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The present revision petition has no merit and same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.