National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Smt. Rekha Jain vs National Insurance Co. Ltd on 17 May, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION No. 4239 of 2007 (From the Order dated 23.08.2007 in Appeal No. 442 of 2001 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan) Smt. Rekha Jain W/o Subhash Chandra Jain, Bahubali Colony, Banswara (Rajasthan) .. Petitioner VERSUS National Insurance Co. Ltd. Commercial Area, Banswara Rajasthan Through Authorized Representative .. Respondent BEFORE: - HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON: 17.05.2012 O R D E R
ASHOK BHAN, J., PRESIDENT Petitioner/Complainant has filed this Revision Petition against the judgment and order dated 23.08.07 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (in short, the State Commission) in appeal no.442/01 whereby the State Commission modifying the order of the District Forum reduced the amount of compensation to Rs.87,500/- from Rs.1,75,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. instead of 12% from the date of filing of complaint till realization.
FACTS:-
Complainant/Petitioner got her Ambassador Car bearing registration No. RJ-03 C-0137 compressively insured with the Respondent insurance Company for a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- by paying the premium of Rs.6,375/-. Respondent issued the cover note. No. 97/6103081 dated 31.12.97 to the Petitioner which was valid for the period from 30.12.97 to 28.12.98.
On the intervening night of 29/30.08.98 the car was stolen from the house of the Petitioner. An FIR was lodged with the Police Station Kotwali, Banswara on 30.08.98. After investigation, Police submitted untraceable report which was accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara. Thereafter, Petitioner lodged the claim of Rs.1,75,000/- with the Respondent Insurance Company. However, the Insurance Company offered to settle the claim at Rs.80,000/- as against the claim amount of Rs.1,75,000/-. Complainant, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the District Forum.
Respondent, on being served, entered appearance and filed its written statement resisting the complaint, inter-alia, on the grounds; that the value of the car was not assessed by a valuer appointed by it; that the amount of Rs.80,000/- was offered as per the market value of the car since it was a model of 1984; that there was no deficiency in service on their part and complaint was liable to be dismissed.
District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- to the Petitioner along with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of filing of complaint till realization.
Rs.6,000/- were awarded as compensation for mental agony and Rs.4,000/- towards costs of litigation.
Respondent, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission. State Commission held that since the car was of 1984 model and the theft took place on 29.08.98, the market value of the vehicle could not exceed 50% of the sum assured and thus the Respondent was not entitled to Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs.1,75,000/-. That the Respondent was entitled to get 50% of the IDV, i.e. 87,500/-. Accordingly, State Commission partly allowed the appeal and directed the Respondent to pay Rs.87,500/- in place of Rs.1,75,000/- to the Petitioner with interest @ 9% p.a. in place of 12% p.a. Petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present Revision Petition.
Counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dharmendra Goel vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2008) 8 SCC 279 contends that the petitioner was entitled to receive the amount for which the vehicle was insured minus the depreciation. We find substance in this submission. In the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court held that the insurance company, after having accepted the value of a particular vehicle, could not disown that very figure on one pretext or other when they are called upon to pay compensation.
The take it or leave it attitude was clearly unwarranted not only as being bad in law but ethically indefensible.
That the insurance company was bound by the value put on the vehicle while renewing the policy. Para-7 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under :
It must be borne in mind that Section 146 of the Motors Vehicles Act, 1988 casts an obligation on the owner of a vehicle to take out an insurance policy as provided under Chapter 11 of the Act and any vehicle driven without taking such a policy invites a punishment under Section 196 thereof. It is therefore, obvious that in the light of this stringent provision and being in a dominant position the insurance companies often act in an unreasonable manner and after having accepted the value of a particular insured good disown that very figure on one pretext or the other when they are called upon to pay compensation. This `take it or leave it' attitude is clearly unwarranted not only as being bad in law but ethically indefensible. We are also unable to accept the submission that it was for the appellant to produce evidence to prove that the surveyor's report was on the lower side in the light of the fact that a price had already been put on the vehicle by the company itself at the time of renewal of the policy. We accordingly hold that in these circumstances, the company was bound by the value put on the vehicle while renewing the policy on 13th February, 2002.
(emphasis supplied) In the present case, while issuing the policy on 31.12.97, the value of the vehicle was put at Rs.1,75,000/-.
Vehicle was stolen after eight months of the taking of the policy on 29.08.1998. In view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, it is held that the Respondent would be liable to pay Rs.1,75,000/- being the insured declared value (IDV) at the time of taking the policy after deducting 10% towards depreciation. After deducting 10% towards depreciation, the amount payable comes to Rs.1,57,500/- which is rounded off to Rs.1,60,000/-.
For the reasons stated above, Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the State Commission is modified. Respondent is directed to pay Rs.1,60,000/- to the Petitioner along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till realization after adjusting the amount, if any, already paid to the Petitioner. No costs.
.. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
(ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(VINEETA RAI) MEMBER Yd/