Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:
(1) Both parties submit that it is an admitted appeal and accordingly heard finally with the consent of both the parties.
(2) Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant Insurance Company for not offering the compensation equivalent total loss due to theft of the vehicle. According to Complainant the insured value of the vehicle was `2,79,600/- while the Insurance Company offered compensation of `1,50,000/-, to which he did not agree and therefore, the consumer complaint was filed. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Kolhapur (‘the Forum’ in short) while passing the impugned order dated 14/07/1999 in Consumer Complaint No.214/1999, Shri Pradip Baburao Patil V/s.The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., taking into consideration declared market value as per the insurance policy, supra, and on its own taking into consideration depreciation @15%, awarded compensation of `2,37,215/- with interst @18% per annum. Feeling aggrieved thereby this appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.
(3) It is submitted on behalf of Appellant Insurance Company that even according to Respondent/original Complainant, as stated before the police the value of the vehicle at the time of theft was stated to be `1,60,000/-. Its Surveyor fixed the value at `1,40,000/- after taking into consideration depreciation value @15% and accordingly, Insurance Company offered compensation of `1,50,000/-. Therefore, the Forum erred in granting compensation more than the value as assessed by the Surveyor.
(4) The Forum also did not agree with the Complainant when he stated that the value of the vehicle was at par with the value of new vehicle. There is no appeal made by the Complainant. We also find that said claim of the Complainant was hypothetical since no evidence laid to substantiate the same. Admittedly, the declared value of the vehicle as per the insurance policy was at `2,79,600/-. However, the Complainant himself while making the statement in lodging F.I.R. about the theft of the vehicle assessed the value of the vehicle at time of theft at `1,60,000/-. Therefore, we find it proper to standby the word of the Complainant regarding the value of the vehicle as assessed by him while making report to the police. It is on little higher side than what has been offered by the Insurance Company but it would be proper and just to accept the same. For the reasons stated above, the order passed by the Forum will have to be modified. We hold accordingly, and pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned order is modified. Substitute the figure of `1,60,000/- in place of `2,37,215/- in paragraph no.1 of the operative part of the impugned order.
(iii) Except this modification, other impugned order remains unchanged.
(iv) In the given circumstances, both parties to bear their own costs of the appeal.
(v) Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Pronounced on 29th August, 2011.
