Per Justice Shri S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President:

Heard both the sides.  This appeal can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

          This appeal takes an exception to an order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Mumbai in consumer complaint no.486/2006 on 29/11/2010.  By this order the complaint has been partly allowed and appellant/insurance company is directed to pay an amount of `4,80,000/-  with interest @9% p.a. from 10/05/2006.  It is further directed that appellant shall pay `5,000/- by way of compensation towards mental agony.  Cost of `3,000/- is also given.  This order is challenged by the insurance company. 

     The following facts are admitted:

          The vehicle Toyota Qualis MH-02-NA-9920 was belonging to respondent/complainant. Said vehicle was insured with appellant/insurance company for a period from 19/03/2005 to 18/03/2006.  It was insured for an amount of `4,80,000/- as per the declaration given by the respondent/complainant and said value has been accepted by the insurance company and acquiesce by the insurance company and therefore, premium was fixed to 15,792/- and it was paid.  In respect of said vehicle the theft has taken place on 07/01/2006 and first information report was lodged with Panvel Police Station being FIR no.5/2006 dated 09/01/2006.  It was FIR as against the unknown person.  Said crime was investigated by the police and police ultimately requested the Magistrate to grant “A” summary report and accordingly, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panvel passed an order and granted “A” summary.  In short meaning of grant of “A” summary is that offence is true, however, accused is not traceable.  In the result, vehicle was not traced.  In respect of this vehicle, the claim was made for an amount of  `4,80,000/-.

          The only defence which has been raised by the appellant/insurance company is that at a relevant point of time on 07/01/2006, the vehicle was being used by the respondent for hire and reward whereas in fact, it was an insured vehicle for personal use and therefore, claim was rejected.  Now, the Ld.Counsel Mr.AismVidyarthi for the insurance company fairly placed before us the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2008 (3) ALL MR 875 in the matter of National Insurance company V/s. Nitin Khndelwal.  Relying upon this judgement, he submitted that in similar circumstances the Apex Court has upheld the order of State Commission granting 75%  amount of the claim on non-standard basis and therefore, he submitted that order to that effect shall be modified and in spite of granting the full claim, 75% amount was directed to be paid to the complainant/respondent.

          What we find is that, that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had not laid down the ratio decidendi which is binding on subordinate court /quasi judicial authorities.  In para 16 of said judgment Supreme Court has observed that, “ The State Commission has allowed only 75% claim of the respondent on non-standard basis.  We are not deciding whether the State Commission was justified in allowing the claim of the respondent on non-standard basis because the respondent has not filed any appeal against the said order.  The said order of the State Commission was upheld by the National Commission and therefore the appeal was not entertained”.  What is important is that, that as a result of granting of compensation on non-standard basis, the complainant in that case did not prefer an appeal and therefore, whether test of granting compensation on the basis of non-standard is a justified or not was not considered  by the Apex Court.  In the result there is no binding ratio.

          So far as the present case is concerned, the declared value of the vehicle by the respondent/complainant was `4,80,000/-.  It was acquiesce and accepted by the insurance company and on that basis insurance policy was issued and premium was fixed.  Apart from that there is also an evidence on record by way of filing affidavit by the complainant stating that value of the said vehicle was `4,80,000/-.

          There is nothing on record produced by the insurance company to demonstrate that value of the vehicle was reduced at relevant time by any means and in fact, even if insurance company would have tried to do it that is also not permissible to them since, the value of the vehicle was accepted and acquiesce by the insurance company.  Therefore, even within period of one year if the vehicle is lost, the value is to be accepted.  Considering all these aspects, District Consumer Redressal Forum has passed the order.

          We find no reason to interfere in said order.  Hence, we pass the following order:-                                                  

:-ORDER-:

1.                 Appeal stands dismissed.

2.                 Amount which has been deposited by the appellant while preferring appeal under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 be released in  favour of the respondents after the period of revision is over.

3.                 No order as to costs.

4.                 Dictated on dais in presence of both the parties.

5.                 Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties as per rule.