ORAL
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P., Lucknow.
Appeal No. 142 of 2018
Babu Ali s/o Sri Mohabbey Ali,
R/o Mohalla Bajaria, Mulla Zarif,
Jail Road, Tehsil, Sadar, District,
Rampur. U.P. ….Appellant.
Versus
Manager, IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance
Company Ltd., F.A.I. Building, Second Floor,
10, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, Qutub
Institutional Area, New Delhi-110067 ….Respondent.
Present:-
Hon’ble Justice Mr. Akhtar Husain Khan, President.
Mr. Ravi Kumar Rawat for appellant.
Mr. Ashok Mehrotra for respondent.
Date: 6.11.2019
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against judgment and order dated 19.12.2017 passed by District Consumer Forum, Saharanpur in complaint no.157 of 2010, Babu Ali vs. Manager, IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., whereby District Consumer Forum has allowed complaint partially and passed order in Hindi which is extracted below:-
“परिवादी का परिवाद विपक्षी के विरूद्ध आंशिक रूप से स्वीकार किया जाता है। विपक्षी को निर्देश दिया जाता है कि आज से 2 माह के भीतर परिवादी को प्रश्नगत ट्रक की क्षतिपूर्ति हेतु 150000/- मय 8 प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज, मानसिक क्षतिपूर्ति हेतु 25000/- मय 8 प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज एंव वाद व्यय 5000/- मय 8 प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज, निर्णय की तिथि से भुगतान की तिथि तक अदा करें।”
Feeling aggrieved with the order passed by District Consumer Forum complainant has filed this appeal before this State Commission for enhancement of compensation awarded by District Consumer Forum.
Ld. Counsel Mr. Ravi Kumar Rawat appeared for appellant.
(2)
Ld. Counsel Mr. Ashok Mehrotra appeared for respondent.
I have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and perused impugned judgment and order as well as records.
It is contended by ld. Counsel for appellant/complainant that the District Consumer Forum has awarded Rs.1,50,000.00 to appellant/complainant for reimbursement of damages suffered by vehicle in accident alleged whereas appellant/complainant has paid Rs.3,75,000.00 for repairing of the vehicle and even surveyor has assessed loss of vehicle to the tune of Rs.2,63,312.00.
It is contended by ld. Counsel for appellant/complainant that the amount of damages awarded by District Consumer Forum is too less. It should be enhanced and appellant/ complainant should be paid actual amount incurred in repairing of vehicle.
Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that respondent/insurance company has complied with impugned order passed by District Consumer Forum and has already paid Rs.2,82,062.00 to appellant/complainant in compliance of impugned judgment and order. The complainant has accepted the said amount. Therefore, appellant/complainant cannot claim enhancement of compensation awarded by District Consumer Forum.
Ld. Counsel for appellant/complainant has submitted that the respondent/insurance company has paid Rs.2,82,062.00 after filing of this appeal. Therefore, the amount paid by insurance company to appellant/complainant shall be deemed to have been accepted subject to result of appeal.
(3)
I have considered the submissions made by ld. Counsel for parties.
No appeal has been filed by respondent/insurance company against impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum and liability imposed by District Consumer Forum on the respondent/insurance company has not been challenged. Therefore, in this appeal sole issue for determination is whether the compensation awarded by District Consumer Forum is sufficient or it should be enhanced.
Indisputably, surveyor has assessed loss of damages suffered by vehicle in question to the tune of Rs.2,63,312.00 whereas appellant/complainant has alleged that Rs.3,75,000.00 has been paid for repairing of the vehicle. District Consumer Forum has not considered the issue of quantum of compensation. In the impugned judgment and order, the District Consumer Forum has mentioned that the amount of damages claimed by appellant/complainant is Rs.3,75,000.00 but the District Consumer Forum is of the view that appellant/complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.1,50,000.00. The District Consumer Forum has neither considered surveyor’s report nor papers submitted by appellant/complainant showing expenditure incurred in repairing of the vehicle.
Considering all facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the damages assessed by surveyor should be accepted. Therefore, I am of the view that appellant/ complainant is entitled to get Rs.2,63,312.00 for damages of the vehicle under policy in question.
(4)
At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum is dated 19.12.2017 and the total decretal amount including interest in terms of impugned judgment and order payable on 19.1.2018 was below Rs.2 lacs but respondent/ insurance company has paid Rs.2,82,062.00 to the appellant/ complainant which has been accepted by appellant/ complainant. This amount has been received by appellant/ complainant after filing of appeal but it is apparent that the amount paid by the respondent/insurance company to the appellant/complainant is much higher than the amount payable in terms of impugned judgment and order.
In view of above, I am of the view that the appellant/ complainant should be paid compensation for damages suffered by vehicle in accident as assessed by surveyor.
In view of above, appeal is allowed partially.
Impugned judgment and order passed by District consumer Forum is modified to this extent that the respondent/insurance company shall pay Rs.2,63,312.00 in place of Rs.1,50,000.00 awarded by District Consumer Forum for the damages suffered by the vehicle alongwith interest and other amounts awarded by District Consumer Forum vide impugned order.
Amount already paid to appellant/complainant shall be adjusted in the amount payable in terms of this order.
In appeal, both parties shall bear their own costs.
(Justice Akhtar Husain Khan)
President
Jafri PA II
Court No.1
