BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)
IN PERSON
13 Aug 2010
ORDER
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2615 OF 2006
(Against the Order dated 11/08/2005 in Appeal No. 264/2003 of the State Commission Himachal Pradesh)
1. DR. DEVI DAYAL GUPTAHOUSE NO, B, 165. SECTOR-3. PHASE -II NEW SHIMLA - 171009 H.P.
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE LTD.G, E, PLAZA AIRPORT , ROAD, YERWADA , PUNE 411006 -
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :
NEMO
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 13 Aug 2010
ORDER
This revision is directed against concurrent findings of two Fora below. Heard the petitioner who appeared in person and Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the OPs. The petitioner has argued before us that during the first six months, no depreciation is required to be taken into consideration for fixing the insured declared value and as such, the Fora below were not justified in deducting 5% of IDB as the depreciated value. In this connection, he has placed before us pgs.50-51 of agents handbook of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Secondly, it is urged by him that he had taken car loan @ 11.75% from The Kangra Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. and as such, he is entitled to 11.75% interest as against 9% awarded by the Fora below. Ld. Counsel for the OP submitted that the orders of the Fora below are very well reasoned and do not call for interference in revision. The petitioner had purchased new car, which was stolen after 4½ months of its purchase. The car was insured for Rs.2,21,299/-w.e.f. 31.3.02 and was stolen on 15.8.2002. The surveyor assessed the market value of the vehicle as Rs.1,85,000/- which was offered to the petitioner , but the petitioner did not accept the same and approached the District Forum for direction to pay Rs.2,21,299/- with 9% interest thereon as also compensation and cost amounting to Rs.30,000/-. The District Forum deducted 5% as depreciation from the IDB and ordered payment of Rs.2,10,234/- with 9% interest thereon and cost of Rs.1,000/-. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the State Commission. The State Commission held that the depreciation of 5% was justified since the vehicle had been used by the petitioner for about 4½ months. On the issue of awarding interest, the State Commission found that no material had been placed on record and that the loan had been taken from The Kangra Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. The petitioner sought to place on record, before us, certificate of The Kangra Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. regarding sanction of loan at 11.75%, which was not placed before Fora below. Hence, the petitioner cannot be permitted to place documents relating to loan in the revision. Moreover, the award is just, fair and equitable. In this view of the matter, the interest of 9% awarded to the complainant by Fora below does not call for any interference. Coming to the issue of depreciation, the petitioner has placed before us two pages of agents handbook of National Insurance Co. Ltd. In fact, the petitioner should have placed relevant material from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Ltd. who had insured the vehicle in question. The petitioner had used the vehicle for 4½ months after which it was stolen and in the facts and circumstances, the Fora below had deducted 5% depreciation on IDB which does not call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. However, there was certainly deficiency on the part of the Insurance Company in not settling the claim and offering only a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- in respect of new car which had been stolen within 4½ months whether the IDB at the time of insurance was taken as Rs.2,21,299/-. Thus, the complainant was forced to knock at the door of the District Forum, which resulted in expense, mental agony and loss of valuable time for which, the petitioner is required to be duly compensated. In view of this, we award a lump-sum amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of cost of Rs.1,000/- awarded by the District Forum. Except for the award of lump-sum amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of cost of Rs.1000/- and modification to that extent, the revision is dismissed.
......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER ......................VINAY KUMARMEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
