Aggrieved by the order dated 23.12.2010 passed by Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in appeal No. 365 of 2009, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited has filed this petition in order to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of -2- this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against an order dated 4.8.2009 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Shimla in consumer complaint No. 157 of 2006, by which the complaint of the complainant was allowed and the insurance company was directed to indemnify the complainant on non-standard basis by paying 75% of the amount of Rs.2,20,000/- and directions were also given to pay interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 30.05.2006 till making of the entire payment with litigation cost of Rs.2,500/-. In the appeal, it was argued on behalf of the insurance company that going by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Amlendu Sahoo vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC), at best, the claim of the complainant could have been settled on non-standard basis by paying 75% of the admissible claim as per the loss assessed by the Surveyor because there was a breach of terms and conditions of the policy in as much as the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence on the date of the accident. Though the State Commission has noted this contention but going by the position that the complainant had spent a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- towards repair/reinstatement of the vehicle in question, the State Commission slightly modified the order and directed the insurance company to pay a sum of -3- Rs.2,16,500/- within a period of 45 days from the date of the order, failing which, the amount shall carry interest @9% per annum till its payment. We have heard Mr. A. K. Kaul, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. R. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent and have considered their respective submissions. Our attention has been invited to the assessment of loss made by the Surveyor, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, who after a detailed and thorough examination, had assessed the net loss at Rs.1,18,752.80 paise, after deducting the salvage value at Rs.3,500/-. Strictly speaking, going by the terms and conditions of the policy, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated but going by the Supreme Court decision in the case of Amlendu Sahoo (supra), we are of the view that for settling the claim on non-standard basis, it was the assessment made by the Surveyor, which should have formed the basis of computation of the damages rather the amount claim to have been spent by the complainant for the repair/reinstatement of the vehicle. Since the Surveyor had assessed the net loss at Rs.1,18,752.80 paise, both the fora below have erred in awarding a compensation exceeding Rs. 2 lakh in this case. The claim of the complainant ought to have been restricted to 75% of the net assessed amount i.e. 1,18,752/- which comes to Rs. 89064/-. -4- Learned counsel for the petitioner-insurance company states that under the order passed by fora below, the insurance company has already paid a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the respondent-complainant. In view of this position and that the amount was already paid after some delay, we dispose of this revision petition in the manner that we award a lump sum compensation of Rs. 1 lakh including the interest payable on the compensation, on non-standard basis. However, if the complainant has been paid amount in excess of Rs. 1 lakh, the complainant shall refund the same to the insurance company within four weeks. Parties to bear their respective costs throughout. |
