PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the complainant – Shri Ramesh Kumar Jain before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (For short ‘District Forum’). He seeks to assail the order dated 8.6.2004 of Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (For short ‘State Commission’). Facts as emerging from the records are that the goods vehicle of the petitioner/complainant during the currency of its insurance met with an accident on 12.3.2002 resulting in extensive damage. On being informed about it, the respondent/opposite party – Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. appointed a surveyor who submitted his report on 8.4.2002. For reasons not indicated, a second surveyor was also appointed by the Insurance Company who too submitted his report on 7.8.2002. As per the first surveyor ; it was a case of total loss and the salvage value was assessed at Rs.2,50,000/-. Since, the market value was quantified at Rs.4,41,000/-; a net payment of Rs.1,91,000/- was to be paid by the Insurance Company, if the salvage was to be retained by the petitioner/complainant or in the alternative, he was entitled to receive a sum of Rs.4,41,000/-, assessed at total loss basis but he had to return the salvage to the opposite party - Insurance Company. The second surveyor, however, has assessed the net loss at Rs.1,13,000/- and the opposite party - Insurance Company offered the petitioner/complainant to accept this amount and retain the salvage which was not accepted by the petitioner/complainant. When the matter had not been settled, the petitioner/complainant sold the salvage for a consideration of Rs.1,91,000/- but filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking a relief of Rs.3,05,000/-. The District Forum, however, held that the petitioner/ complainant was entitled to a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- after deducting the sale proceeds of salvage i.e. Rs.1,91,000/- from the total value of Rs.4,41,000/- as assessed by the first surveyor – Shri C.M.Sharma. In addition, the District Forum held that the complainant was entitled to interest @ 9% on this amount from the date of the survey report i.e. 8.4.2002 till the date of payment and further imposed a cost of Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses. Both the petitioner/complainant as well as the respondent/ opposite party filed appeal against the order of the District Forum before the State Commission who vide its order dated 8.6.2004 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner/complainant for grant of any additional interest but partly accepted the appeal of the respondent/opposite party and held that instead of Rs.2,50,000/- awarded by the District Forum, the respondent/opposite party was to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,91,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 8.4.2002. Unhappy with the order of the State Commission reducing the award from Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.1,91,000/-, that the petitioner/complainant has filed this revision petition seeking not only the restoration of the award of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest but also another sum of Rs.37,640/- on account of interest paid to the Bank on the loan obtained for the purchase of the vehicle. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent ought to have honoured the assessment made by the first surveyor and offered the amount of Rs.1,91,000/- within a reasonable period. In the absence of any communication in that regard, he was forced to dispose of the vehicle at only Rs.1,91,000/- as the value of the damage vehicle was getting reduced day by day ; in order to save himself from the payment of heavy Bank interest and, thereafter, filed a complaint before the District Forum. Learned counsel further submitted that there was absolutely no need for the appointment of a second surveyor which amounts to unfair trade practice as the opinion given by the second surveyor – Shri Pukhraj Jain, reduced the net loss to only Rs.1,31,000/-. It is further argued that the respondent – Insurance Company in a fraudulent manner directly remitted a sum of Rs.1,31,000/- to the Branch Manager, B.K.G. Narayanpur seeking a discharge voucher from them. Accordingly to the learned counsel, the petitioner/complainant was entitled to an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rs.4,41,000/- – Rs.1,91,000/-) since the first surveyor had assessed the value of the vehicle at Rs.4,41,000/- and he could recover only a sum of Rs.1,91,000/- by the sale of the salvage. Relief with regard to interest of Rs.37,640/- to be paid by the petitioner/complainant to the borrowing Bank is also justified. He has, therefore, prayed that the order of the State Commission being erroneous, be set aside and his petition be allowed. Learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance Company on the other hand has submitted that the value of the vehicle on total loss basis was assessed by both the surveyors at Rs.4,41,000/-. The first surveyor had assessed the value of salvage at Rs.2,50,000/- and recommended the net loss to be at Rs.1,91,000/-. The respondent – Insurance Company had offered the petitioner/complainant even the full amount of Rs.4,41,000/- provided the petitioner surrendered the salvage and in the alternative, he could be given the net loss of Rs.1,91,000/- if he retained the salvage which was valued at Rs.2,50,000/-. As pointed out in para 10 of the order of the State Commission, the complainant at some stage was agreeable to accept this amount of Rs.1,91,000/- which meant that the complainant was not willing to part with the salvage. Now that the complainant himself has sold out the salvage, it does not lie in his mouth to claim the amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. He could at best be entitled to the net loss assessed at Rs.1,91,000/-. Contending further, the learned counsel submits that remittance of Rs.1,31,000/- by the respondent – Insurance Company to the Bastar Kshetriya Gramin Bank has caused no prejudice to the interest of the complainant since the vehicle was hypothecated to the Bank. He further submits that it is not the Insurance Company but the complainant himself who has not been fair with his dealings, since he disposed of the salvage without any notice to the insurer. He further contends that there being no merit in the revision petition, the same deserves to be dismissed with cost. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case. As rightly stated by the State Commission in its order, the only issue for consideration was as to whether the petitioner/complainant was entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. After a thorough analysis of the evidence and the contentions raised before it, including the contention that the salvage was sold only for Rs.1,91,000/- as against the assessed value of the salvage at Rs.2,50,000/- ; the State Commission came to the conclusion that the conditions under which the salvage was sold to the purchaser amounted to the vehicle being sold at much higher consideration than Rs.1,91,000/- which was only the cash payment. The purchaser of the salvage in addition had to discharge instalment liabilities with the borrowing Bank about which details have been cleverly withheld by the petitioner/complainant. The salvage value of Rs.2,50,000/- as assessed by the first surveyor was, therefore, fully justified. We are in complete agreement with the view expressed by the State Commission. The respondent - Insurance Company had been just and fair in accepting the value of the vehicle at Rs.4,41,000/- which is not disputed by the complainant. Value of the salvage at Rs.2,50,000/- too is a fair assessment. The petitioner/complainant was, therefore, entitled to receive a sum of (Rs.4,41,000/- – Rs.2,50,000/-) = Rs.1,91,000/-, if the damaged vehicle was not handed over to respondent – Insurance Company or in the alternative he could receive a payment of Rs.4,41,000/-, if he were to deliver the damaged vehicle to the insurer. It is clear from the records that the petitioner/complainant was not willing to part with the damaged vehicle and, therefore he should have accepted a sum of Rs.1,91,000/- which, he did not agree. His contention that there was delay in the payment of Rs.1,91,000/- and, therefore he disposed of the damaged vehicle cannot be believed. He appears to have been dithering with regard to handing over the salvage (damaged vehicle) and receive the full amount of compensation too. Since, he has disposed of the salvage on his own terms, the State Commission has very correctly held that he would be entitled to only Rs.1,91,000/- which is the full compensation on retaining the vehicle as per the report of the first surveyor i.e. (Rs.4,41,000/- – Rs.2,50,000/-). With regard to the remittance of Rs.1,13,00/- directly to the Bankers, we agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that the same has caused no prejudice to the interest of the petitioner/complainant since the vehicle stood hypothecated to the Bank. Under the circumstances, we do not find anything wrong or illegal in the order passed by the State Commission. The revision petition is devoid of any merit and is, therefore, dismissed, however, with no order as to cost. …………………..………J (R.K. BATTA) (PRESIDING MEMBER) ……………….…………… (S.K. NAIK) MEMBER St/24 |
