State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mrs. Kusum Lata Mangal vs New India Assurance Company Ltd., on 11 October, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 11.10.2007 Appeal No. A-226/04 (Arising out of Order dated 08-01-2004 passed by the District Consumer Forum(Central), Maharana Pratap Bus Terminal, Mezzanine Floor, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Case No. 443/2003) Mrs. Kusum Lata Mangal Appellant Pro. M/s Popular Hosiery Mills, Through F-6, Udyog Nagar, Mr. V.K. Anand, Nangloi, Advocate. Delhi-110041. Versus 1. Chairman & Managing Director Respondent New India Assurance Company Ltd., 87, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai. 2. The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office : 310100, 7E, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055. CORAM: Justice J.D. Kapoor President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral)
1. Appellant insured his car with the respondent against covering the risk of damage due to accident on theft. Admittedly during the subsistence of the policy, the vehicle was attacked by several unknown persons who had tried hitting the vehicle with their car and in the process the vehicle was badly damaged as many as 20 bullets were fired. As per the estimate of the appellant the cost of the repair was Rs.1,19,075/- whereas the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 64,539/-. Consequently the appellant filed the instant complaint before the District Forum for payment of the balance amount.
2. Vide impugned order dated 08.01.2004, the District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that no convincing evidence was produced by the appellant to show the actual repair was of Rs. 1,19,075/- which seems to be exaggerated. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. The main premise on which the appellant raised his case is the report of the surveyor in respect of the old tyres, old stereo and old seats having been replaced by new one. However, the surveyor questioned the veracity of one of the bills for the amount of Rs. 31,849/- pertaining to the replacement of front seats, rear seat and left seat.
4. As is apparent from the report of the respondent he deducted the aforesaid amount besides the cost of new stereo and new tyres. As regards the stereo, the surveyor has reported that the stereo was found missing as it was alleged to have been taken away by the culprits.
5. In our view, the damaged item of any vehicle which becomes merely one year old suffers the depreciated value and there is no term of the contract between the parties that in respect of old and used part the insurance company shall be liable to indemnify the cost of brand new items keeping in view the nature of the items namely the stereo, the tyres and the seats, we do not feel inclined to award 50% of the value of new parts assessed by the appellant i.e. lower down the balance claimed.
6. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.
7. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.
8. Announced on 11th day of October, 2007.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member ysc