Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/1789

SHAILENDRA JHAWAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL INSU.CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SH.VIJAY SHAHANI

22 Jul 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1789 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 06.06.2017 passed in C.C.No.86/2015 by District Commission, Mandsaur)

 

SHAILENDRA JHAWAR,

S/O SHRI SATYANARAYAN JHAWAR,

R/O BAIDYANATH KI HAVELI,

UDAYPUR ROAD, CHHITORGARH, (RAJ)                                                      … APPELLANT.

 

                  Versus

 

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

THROUGH ITS MANAGER,

JAGID MANSION, NAI ABAADI,

MHOW-NEEMUCH ROAD, MANDSUAR (M.P.)                                        …. RESPONDENT.

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : ACTING PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

                                   

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Vijay Shahani, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Shri R. N. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

(Passed On 22.07.2024)

         The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Acting President:

           Being aggrieved by the order dated 06.06.2017 & 01.08.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandsaur (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.86/2015 whereby the complaint filed by complainant/appellant has been allowed, the complainant/appellant has filed this appeal.

2.                The facts of the case as narrated by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) are that the complainant’s vehicle

-2-

Skoda car bearing registration number RJ-09 CA-0799 is registered with the opposite party-insurance company for the period w.e.f. 21.07.2013 to 20.07.2014 for IDV Rs.5,40,000/-. The subject vehicle met with an accident on 26.04.2014 of which FIR was lodged with the police station Khachrod and intimation was also given to the insurance company. It is submitted by the complainant that when he took the vehicle to Satguru Motors, Indore, it was informed that a sum of Rs.16,81,000/- will be spent in repairs. It is alleged that even after 10 months, the insurance company did not decide the complainant’s claim and when he approached the insurance company regarding settlement of his claim, the insurance company repudiated the claim on 18.02.2015 on false grounds. The complainant by filing the complaint before the District Commission sought IDV of subject vehicle Rs.5,40,000/-, Rs.50,000/- spent in rent for keeping the vehicle and Rs.50,000/- as compensation with interest and costs.

3.                The opposite party insurance company in their reply filed before the District Commission submitted that at the time of accident the complainant was not having insurable interest in the subject vehicle as he had already sold the vehicle to one Prateek Dosi resident of Mandsaur in the year 2011. Thus the complainant was not having ownership of the subject vehicle at the time of accident. In such circumstances, there has been no deficiency in service on part of the insurance company in

-3-

repudiating the claim of the complainant. It is thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                The District Commission while allowing the complaint directed the insurance company to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.5,38,000/- as assessed by the surveyor after deducting salvage value of Rs.1,00,000/- which comes to Rs.4,38,000/- with interest @ 7% p.a. till payment within a period of one month. Compensation of Rs.5,000/- with costs of Rs.2,000/- is also awarded.

5.                Thereafter the complainant/appellant moved an application under Section 151 read with Section 152 of CPC before the District Commission making a prayer to calrify the date from which the interst shall be calculated. The District Commission vide order dated 01.08.2017 clarified that the interest shall be calculated from the date of final order i.e. 06.06.2017. The District Commission further clarified that order dated 01.08.2017 shall be a part of the main order dated 06.06.2017 and the same shall be kept and read with the earlier order dated 06.06.2017. It is against this order the complainant has preferred this appeal.

6.                Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the District Commission did not consider the fact that interest on the awarded amount should be calculated from the date of cause of action arose first

-4-

i.e. the date of claim or from the date of filing of complaint i.e. from 29.07.2015 and not from the final verdict of the District Commission. He argued that the District Commission has not clarified that on what ground it found the complainant to be eligible for interest from the date of order. He argued that the District Commission ignored the very important fact that the surveyor had deducted the excess clause amount. However, it is well settled proposition of law that if the paid amount of sum insured is lesser than the access clause amount then the excess clause amount shall be deducted.  Hence, the complainant is entitled to be paid awarded amount along with excess clause amount of Rs.2,000/-.

8.                Learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent-insurance company argued that after considering the evidence available on record and overall facts and circumstances of the case has rightly directed to pay the amount as assessed by the surveyor after deducting salvage value with interest from the date of order along with compensation and costs. He argued that the complainant is not entitled to get any further relief. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

9.                Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we find that earlier the complainant’s subject vehicle Skoda car bearing registration number RJ-09 CA-0799 was insured with the insurance company for the period w.e.f. 21.07.2013 to 20.07.2014 for

-5-

IDV of Rs.5,40,000/- (D-1). The subject vehicle met with an accident during the insurance cover on 26.04.2014 at Joara road. The claim was filed with the insurance company. The insurance company appointed Investigator M. L. Soni and Surveyor Pankaj Gahoi in the matter.

10.              Investigator M. L. Soni vide his report dated 15.09.2014 (D-2) opined that the accident occurred during insurance cover. The vehicle owner Shailendra Jhanwar is a partner of Firm Gangotri Enterprises deals in shares, property investment and mediation. One Prateek Doshi is also a partner of the said firm. At the time of accident, the vehicle sent to Indore to pick family members. The claim is payable.

11.              Surveyor Pankaj Gahoi vide his report dated 26.05.2014 (D-3) assessed the liability restricted to IDV Rs.5,40,000/- less excess clause Rs.2,000/- which comes to Rs.5,38,000/-. Further wreck value with papers was fixed at Rs.1,00,000/- and without papers was fixed at Rs.50,000/-. However, the insurance company vide letter dated 09.03.2015 (D-7) asked the complainant to prove insurable interest in the vehicle with the evidence as at the time of accident, the subject vehicle was carrying family members of Mr.Doshi whereas as per partnership deed the vehicle was to be used for the official purpose of the firm. Thereafter the insurance company vide letter dated 03.04.2015 (D-6) informed the complainant that since you did not provide the information it seems that you are not

-6-

interested in getting the claim and therefore, the competent authority closed the claim file.

12.              Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, the District Commission found that the complainant was having insurable interest in the subject vehicle and allowed the complaint and directing the insurance company to pay to the complainant Rs.4,38,000/- (after deducting excess clause of Rs.2000/- and salvage value Rs.1,00,000/- from Rs.5,40,000/-) with interest @ 7% p.a. till payment within a period of one month. Compensation of Rs.5,000/- with costs of Rs.2,000/- is also awarded. Since the date from which the interest was payable is not clarified, the complainant moved an application to clarify the same.  The District Commission vide its order dated 01.08.2017 clarified that interest will be payable from the date of order.

13.              The main grievance of the complainant/appellant before us is that interest on the awarded amount should be calculated from the date of cause of action arose first i.e. the date of claim or from the date of filing of complaint i.e. from 29.07.2015 and not from the final order of the District Commission. On considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the evidentiary material placed on record, we find that it is the discretion of the District Commission to award interest from the date as it deemed fit. We do not find any ground to interfere with the same.

-7-

14.              In view of the above discussion, we do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the District Commission in the impugned orders dated 06.06.2017 and 01.08.2017. Accordingly, the impugned orders are hereby affirmed.

15.              In the result, this appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

 

                    (A. K. Tiwari)                      (Dr. Srikant Pandey)  

                 Acting President                                Member