ORAL ORDER
Per – Hon’ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member
Heard Adv. R. P. Bafna on behalf of the Appellant/original Opponent, The New India Assurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Insurance Company’ for the sake of brevity) and Mr. Rajendra Janardan Mane representing the Respondents/original Complainants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Complainants’ for the sake of brevity).
[2] This appeal filed by the Insurance Company takes an exception to an order dated 17/10/2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Forum’ for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No.96 of 2001, Mr. Sanjay Janardan Mane (Since deceased) through his legal heirs, Mr. Janardan Keshav Mane and Others Vs. The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd.
[3] It is a case of alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company for not settling the dispute regarding claim of the insured vehicle which met with an accident. Insurance Company submitted that as settled between the parties viz. the Insured and the Insurance Company and as recommended by the surveyor, the claim was offered to be settled at `3,10,000/- provided salvage is handed over to the Insurance Company. However, the salvage was not handed and consumer complaint was filed. The Forum partly allowed the consumer complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainants an amount of `3,10,000/- together with interest thereon @ 9% p.a., as from 1/8/2000 besides an amount of `3,500/- by way of compensation towards mental agony and costs of `1,000/-. The Forum also directed the Insurance Company to take into its possession the insured vehicle bearing RTO Registration No.MH-11/H-7255 at its own costs. Feeling aggrieved by the said order this appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.
[4] Referring to the report dated 10/6/2000 of the surveyor and the written consent given by Late Mr. Sanjay Janardan Mane, who was the Insured, about his willingness to settle the claim at `3,10,000/- (obviously barring the salvage value), the finding of the Forum to settle the dispute at `3,10,000/- which could be indemnified under the insurance policy could be accepted but for the adjustment of salvage value. The Forum directed the Insurance Company to take into its possession the salvage i.e. the insured vehicle bearing RTO Registration No.MH-11/H-7255 at its own costs. In fact, it was the Insured who had taken possession on executing bond of the ill-fated insured vehicle from the Court by virtue of an order passed in Criminal Complaint No.147 of 2000. Fact remains that the Insured failed to hand-over the salvage to the Insurance Company. Insurance Company while sanctioning the claim on total loss basis to the extent of `3,10,000/- also took into consideration the salvage value of `1,20,000/- as assessed by the surveyor. The report of the surveyor needs to be accepted. Thus, the liability of the Insurance Company on total loss basis is confined only to the extent of `1,90,000/- which is to be indemnified by the Insurance Company.
[5] Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company tried to convince us submitting that since the Insurance Company was willing to pay and settle the claim at `3,10,000/- after receiving the salvage or at an amount of `1,90,000/- in absence of salvage, no interest may be saddled on the Insurance Company and the impugned order may be modified accordingly. We are unable to accept this contention for the reason that Insurance Company in fact had not paid what-ever the agreeable amount to the legal heirs of the Insured and, therefore, we reject the said contention.
[6] In view of the provisions of Section-14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity), the order passed by the Forum directing the Insurance Company to take into its possession the insured vehicle at its own costs cannot be supported. It is the duty of the insured to handover the salvage to the insurance company.
Under the circumstances, we hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal is partly allowed.
Impugned order dated 17th October, 2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara in Consumer Complaint No.96 of 2001 is partly modified.
In the second paragraph of the operative part of the impugned order the figure of Rupees Three Lacs Ten Thousand only (`3,10,000/-) shall be substituted by figure of ‘Rupees One Lac Ninety Thousand only (`1,90,000/-)’. Except for this modification rest of the order stands confirmed.
In the peculiar circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
Pronounced and dictated on 05th March, 2013
