This is an Appeal against the order dated 28-6-96 passed by the Hon’ble Consumer Redressal (District Forum) Shillong in case No.C.P. 33(S)/95. The Insurance Company. Ltd also submitted an appeal/cross Appeal under section 15 of the C.P. Act, 1986 against the said orders. Both the matter taken up together.

 

The basic facts are summed up below:

 

A touirist bus bearing No.ML 05 9803 of the complainant was insured with the Respondents. The said vehicle met with an accident on 23.10.94 while it was proceeding towards Shillong from Guwahati along with passengers near Umran-Naya-bangalow with one truck which was coming from opposite direction in a blind corner and dashed the said Bus causing serious bodily injury to the driver and also substantial damage to the bus. The said accident was reported to the police at Umsning and the OP was verbally informed over phone on the date of accident and also by a letter dated 24-10-94 which was acknowledged by the Branch Manager of the OP No.1 on 25-10-94. The appellant as per requisition of the OP submitted the relevant papers and documents in support of his claim from time to time and also personally approached the OP fro an early settlement against his claim which he has spent a huge amount of money towards the repairing to the extent of Rs.1,23,710/.. Two months later the submission of the claim documents the claim of the appellant was finalized and the complainant was asked to sign the discharge voucher. The appellant approached the Branch Manager of the OP and signed the blank voucher on 14-4-95 where the complainant was informed that the sum of Rs.50,000/ has been passed for payment against the claim amount for Rs.1,23,710/. It was stated by the appellant that the amount spent for the repair of the said vehicle was as per advice given by the OP and as per the estimate submitted by him prior to repairing of the vehicle and the surveyor have visited the garage at Guwahati where the vehicle was lying under repair the loss of Rs.1,000/- per day also was sustained for the period of 40 days and the OP was informed of the actual fact. The complainant was however surprised to receive the Notice dated 20-4-95 from one S.K. Deb, claiming himself to be an arbitrator appointed unilaterally. The complainant-appellant refuted the appointment of the Arbitrator and requested the Company to settle the claim. On its failure to get any effective response the Appellant lodged its complaint before the district Forum for its Redressal. The complainant inter alia stated that the complainant caused the repair of the vehicle at the instance of the Insurance Company and before getting the vehicle repaired the estimate for repairing was submitted to the repairing and the claim of the appellant was based upon actual expenditures and duly supported with all relevant documents, cash memos etc, hence nothing could be disputed. The complainant accordingly requested the OP to settle the claim at the earliest. Since the date of forwarding of the said letter dated 13-5-94 the appellant was awaiting for the disposal of his claim from the OP amicably.

 

The Respondent OP has showed cause and disputed and denied the material part of the allegations. According to the opposite party, the complainant did not come to the Forum with a clean hand and as the complainant was already processed with the care and dispatch and founded to be payable to the extent of Rs.49,080/- and the same was settled accordingly for the said amount and the settlement along with discharge voucher was sent to the complainant who refused to accept the settlement and filed the complaint with an improper motive. The OP/Respondent also questioned the claim of the complainant as highly inflated, imaginary and beyond the contractual stipulation. The Op also asserted that the dispute between the parties were fully covered by the Arbitration Clause of the Insurance Policy and in pursuance of the arbitration clause the difference of the quantum was referred to the Arbitrator, Sri. S.K.Deb Purkayastha, Advocate who also did enter appearance into the office and issued notices to both the parties to file their statement of the case but the complainant instead of filing his statement to the competent authority approached the Consumer Redressal District Forum without any valid reason.

 

The learned District Forum considered the case at length and at evaluation of the facts as well as the law assessed the cost of spares at Rs.44,150/-, 25,850 towards labour charge and accordingly awarded a sum of Rs 70,000/- towards compensation to pay the complainant with interest at the rate of Rs.12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint petition till the date of payment. Hence the Appeals.

 

The appellant approached this Forum for enhancement of compensation and the opposite party approached and the judgment and order of the District Forum as exorbitant .

 

We have considered the respective merits of the cases and on overall consideration on the matter we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the learned District Forum awarding Rs.70,000/- as compensation to the appellant/complainant. However considering the bonafide of the Insurance Company and taking into note the attempt of the Insurance Company to settle the dispute at the earliest the award of the interest at the rate of  Rs.12% is excessive and accordingly the award of interest is reduced to 6% per annum instead of 12% per annum as awarded by the learned District Forum.