Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/318/2015

K. Palaniappan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., The Branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Vedavallikumar

25 Apr 2022

ORDER

   IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH     :     PRESIDENT

                 THIRU R. VENKATESAPERUMAL            :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 318 of 2015

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.65 of 2013 dated 04.06.2015 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F., Namakkal.

 

Monday, the 25^th day of April 2022

 

K. Palaniappan

S/o.Mr. Kumarasamy

No.3/157, Velammavalasu

Devannagoundanur (PO)

Sankagiri Taluk

Salem District.                                                                                                                                      .. Appellant/ Complainant

 

 

- Vs –

 

The Branch Manager

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Kumar Complex, 1^st Floor

No.146 West Car Street

Tiruchengode- 637 211.                                                                                                                        .. Respondent/

                                                     Opposite Party

   

    Counsel for Appellant /Complainant              : M/s. Vedavalli Kumar

    Counsel for the Respondent/Opposite Party  : M/s. Nageswaran &

                                                                                  Narichania

 

                                                                                                       

This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 25.04.2022 and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for both the parties and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the    following :-

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT  [Open Court]

1.     Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Namakkal, in C.C. No.65 of 2013 dated 04.06.2015 the present appeal has been filed by the  Complainant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

2.  The factual background culminating in this appeal is as follows:  The case of the Complainant is that the complainant is the owner of Ashok Leyland lorry bearing Registration No.TN 30 R 4559.  He was using the said lorry to carry goods.  He had insured the said lorry with the opposite party Insurance company vide policy No.454301/31/2012/2394 covering the period 14.09.2011 to 13.09.2012.  On 17.05.2012 at about 11.30 p.m, the said lorry was proceeding from Dindugul Thadikombu to Rajasthan State carrying 240 cone bundles.  While the lorry was going near Aravakurichi Toll Gate, there was a heavy rain and as such the driver of the lorry could not proceed further.  Hence the driver parked the lorry on the left side of the road and got down from the lorry and was standing safely on the side of the road.  At that time he noticed smoke eminating from the goods.   When he made an attempt to find out the reason for the smoke, he noticed that fire was spreading on the goods.  The lorry driver tried to douse the fire but he failed in his attempt.  Immediately he informed the police station and fire station.  Even before the fire engine reached the spot, the entire goods burnt in the fire.   On 18.05.2012, the complainant had also lodged a complaint with Aravakkurichi Police station.  On 24.05.2012, the complainant made a claim with the opposite party.  The surveyor appointed by the opposite party inspected the lorry and filed a report on 03.09.2012.  Thereafter, there was no response from the opposite party. The complainant had insured the lorry for Rs.12,00,000/-.  As per the surveyor’s report, the value of loss to the complainant was Rs.11,08,048/-.  There was total loss of the vehicle and hence the opposite party is bound to pay the total insured amount to the complainant.   But, the opposite party prolonged the issue and did not pay the claim amount.  The legal notice sent to the opposite party on 01.07.2013, was neither replied nor the claim was settled by the opposite party.  Hence, the present complaint was filed before the District Forum seeking the following directions to the opposite party :-

1. to pay a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- towards total loss of the vehicle and goods;
2. to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @ 12% towards loss of income;  and
3. to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 12% towards mental agony.

 

3.  The said complaint was resisted by the opposite party, filing a written version stating that the alleged delay in settling the claim was not wilful.  The opposite party had accorded approval for settlement of the claim on Net of Salvage Loss Basis for Rs.4,69,000/- since the correct Insured Declared Value as per IMT should have been Rs.8,28,000/-.  After reducing wreck value with RC Rs.3,60,000/-, policy excess Rs.1,500/- and adding towing charges Rs.2,500/-, the total amount of compensation was worked out to Rs.4,69,000/-.  Initially, the complainant was very much willing to receive the said amount.   Hence, a letter dated 28.11.2013 was sent to the complainant by the Tiruchengode Branch Manager of the opposite party along with a duly stamped Discharge Voucher.  But for the reasons best known to the complainant he had rushed to the District Forum even without responding to the said letter.  As per condition 7 of the Insurance Policy, in case of any dispute or difference in the quantum of compensation, the matter should be referred only to a Sole Arbitrator.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the complaint is premature in nature.

 

4.   In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, along with proof affidavit 6 documents have been filed and the same were marked as Exhibits A1 to A6.  On the side of the opposite party, along with proof affidavit 7 documents have been filed and the same were marked as Exhibits B1 to B7.

 

5.  The District Forum, after analyzing the entire evidence on records, has come to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and directed them to pay a sum of Rs.9,28,500/- as compensation towards damages caused to the vehicle and Rs.3000/- towards litigation expenses.   However, not being satisfied with the compensation amount, the complainant has filed the present appeal.

 

 

6.  Heard the submissions of the counsel for the appellant/ complainant and the counsel for the respondent/ opposite party and perused the material on records. 

 

7.   When the matter was taken up for final hearing, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that though very many grounds have been raised by him in the appeal, he restricts his submission only with regard to non-awarding of interest.  In other words, it is the submission of the counsel that though the District Forum had awarded the compensation amount it had failed to grant interest for the delayed period.  In this regard we have also heard the counsel for the respondent.  Since there is an inordinate delay in settling the claim amount, the complainant is entitled for a reasonable interest.  But, the District Forum had failed to grant interest.  Therefore, this Commission is of the opinion that granting 7.5% interest would suffice to meet the interest of justice.

 

8.   In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.  The respondent/ opposite party is directed to pay 7.5% interest on the compensation amount of Rs.9,28,500/- from the date of complaint till the date of payment.  Except this modification, the order dated 04.06.2015 passed in C.C. No.65 of 2013 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Namakkal is confirmed in all other aspects.  Consequently, the Appeal is partly allowed.

 

 

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                         R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

 

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/April /2022