1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.UNITED INDIA HOUSE, 24, WHITES ROAD CHENNAI
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :
MR. YATISH MOHAN
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 27 Jul 2010
ORDER
Not fully contended with the order dated 31.3.2006 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow ( in short, the State Commission) in complaint case No. 209 of 2002, the original complainant has filed the present appeal. The complaint before the State Commission was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company in not settling the insurance claim relating to the damage/loss to an insured vehicle, namely, a Ceilo Car 1997 model, which met with an accident on 1.2.2002 and was substantially damaged. The complaint was filed seeking the following relief:- PRAYER It is, therefore, MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT this Honlble Court may be pleased to :- i) the respondents be commanded to pay an amount of Rs. 5.78 lacs along with interest thereon at penal rates from 1.2.2002 till date within a period to be specified by this Honble Court; or alternatively to command the respondents to pay the petitioner an amount of rs.3,75,700/- along with interest thereon at penal rates of interest from 1.2.2002 along with refund of the excess amount of premium charged from the petitioner for the period 3.6.1998-2.6.1999 to 3.6.2001-2.6.2002 along with interest thereon at penal rates of interest from the time of charging of such premium till the date of actual disbursement; ii) damages at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per month on account of delay in finalizing the claim of the petitioner and non-availability/non user of the vehicle from February, 2002 till the date of actual payment; 2. The complaint was resisted by the insurance company not disputing the factum of insurance, accident and damage to the car but liability to pay the claim to the extent it was claimed by the appellant/complainant was disputed. Surveyors one after the other were appointed and finally Mr. Naresh Kumar & Company was appointed, who assessed the total compensation payable to the complainant at Rs.50,000/- after assessing the value of the car at the relevant time at Rs. 1 lakh and on deduction of a sum of Rs. 45,000/- as salvage value of the car. The State Commission, going by the respective pleas and the material brought before it, came to the conclusion that the complainant was at best entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,45,000/- towards its claim under the insurance and accordingly allowed the complaint in part and directed the insurance company to pay the amount of Rs. 1,45,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of the filing of the complaint i.e. 17.12.2002 till the actual date of payment with the stipulation that if the payment was not made within 90 days from the date of the order, the rate of interest shall stand increased to 12% per annum. 3. We have heard Mr. P. N. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant but had not the advantage of hearing the say of the respondents-insurance company as none appeared for them despite notice of hearing of the appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would assail the impugned order as unjustified, more particularly, on the ground that the State Commission has erred in going by the market value of the car in question at the relevant time when it met with an accident as assessed by the Surveyor. According to him, the car was insured in the sum of Rs.5,78,000/- during the relevant period and since it was a case of total loss due to the accident, the complainant was entitled to the insured amount or slightly less amount even if some deduction was to be made on account of depreciation in that year. In support of his contention, learned counsel has heavily relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Dharmendra Goel vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 2008 (8) SCC 279 wherein the Apex Court has held that once the insurance company received the premium on a declared value of the car, then it is bound to settle the claim on that basis and no arbitrary principle of re-assessing the value of the vehicle could be applied or deduction made on those considerations. There cannot be any quarrel with the legal proposition emerging from the said decision but each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. 5. In the case in hand, though the car in question was insured in the sum of Rs. 5,78,000/- ever since it was purchased by the complainant uptill the period May, 2001-2002 but in the prayer clause, the complainant had himself claimed a sum of Rs.3,75,700/- as compensation alongwith interest. We inquired form the learned counsel for the appellant as to on what basis, he claimed the said sum of Rs.3,75,000/- and he tried to explain that this amount had been worked out by making deductions on account of depreciation going by the age of the vehicle as provided under Section 1 of the terms and conditions of the policy which provides as under:- Age of vehicle % of depreciation Upto 6 months Nil Between 6 months and 1 year 5% Between 1 year and 2 year 10% Between 2 years and 3 years 15% Between 3 years and 4 years 25% Between 4 years and 5 years 35% Between 5 years and 10 years 40% Over 10 years 50% 6. We are, therefore, satisfied that as on the date of taking the insurance viz. 30.05.2001, the value of the car was Rs.3,75,700/-. The car met with an accident on 1.2.2002 i.e. after a gap of about 8 months and therefore, some further deduction was required to be made on account of depreciation for the period of about 8 months. We consider it appropriate to make deduction @ 10% for this period and by doing so, the value of the car at the relevant time of accident comes to Rs. 3,38,130/-. The Surveyor had assessed the salvage value of the car at Rs.45,000/- and since the car though left in the garage will be deemed to be the property of the complainant unless it had been transferred to the insurance company, therefore, a further sum of Rs. 45,000/- is liable to be deducted from the amount of Rs.3,38,130/-, which would bring the net payable amount of compensation to Rs. 2,93,130/-. Since the claim was not settled promptly and due amount was not paid, we consider it expedient to award interest @9% per annum on this amount from the date of filing of the complaint till actual payment. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order is modified to the extent that the respondent-insurance company is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,93,130/- with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till actual payment. No order as to costs in these proceedings.
......................JR.C. JAINPRESIDING MEMBER ......................SURESH CHANDRAMEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
