National Consumer Disputes Redressal
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Kamal Nayan on 27 January, 2006
Equivalent citations: IV(2006)CPJ84(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, J. (Presiding Member)
1. These two appeals arise from the order passed by the State Commission on 12.2.1999 passed in complaint filed by Kamal Nayan who is the respondent in FA No. 81 of 1999 and appellant in FA No. 201 of 1999.
2. Very brief facts of the case are that the complainant owned a truck which was insured for a sum of Rs. 2,60,000 for the relevant period. The truck was taken to Calcutta along with goods by the driver but he was found to be missing. Matter was reported to the police to register the case under Section 407 of IPC. Neither truck was traceable nor the material was traceable. Matter was also reported to the Insurance Company. When the claim preferred was not getting settled, a complaint was filed before the State Commission who after hearing the parties directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs. 3,56,999 along with cost of Rs. 2,500.
3. Aggrieved by this order, two separate appeals have been filed by both the parties before us.
4. We heard the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company and also perused the written arguments submitted by the complainant.
5. In filing FA No. 201 of 1999, admittedly, there is delay of 73 days in filing this appeal. An application for condonation of delay has been filed in which the only plea taken is that he is in great financial difficulty. We are unable to appreciate the plea taken by the complainant for condonation of delay.
6. Coming to the merits of this appeal, we find that prayer is with regard to grant of interest and also evidence the compensation for damages which has not been granted by the State Commission and has left the complainant to pursue the remedy in Civil Court. In FA No. 81 of 1999, in our view the Insurance Company is aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded by the State Commission.
7. Admittedly, the Insurance was for Rs. 2,66,000 and principle of indemnity is to place the insured in a position to maintain the status quo. In any case, the State Commission have granted compensation exceeding the limit of insurance for which no details are available. We also see that the claim of Rs. 3,56,999 is not supported by any material on record, hence this amount of awarded compensation cannot be sustained. The only material on record is a survey report which has assessed the loss at 'Rs. 1,35,500 on repair basis' and 'Rs. 1,11,000 on cash loss basis. No ground has been taken before the State Commission or before us by the complainant as to not to rely upon the report of the Surveyor.
8. The Supreme Court in catena of judgments has taken pains to emphasize that report of Surveyor is an important piece of document and evidence which cannot be brushed aside without sufficient reasoning. In the present instance, no such ground has been shown to take a different view from the report of the Surveyor. It needs to be clarified at this stage that after the initial stages of the vehicle given up as lost, it was subsequently recovered and Surveyor could be appointed only at that time. The report of the Surveyor, Y.K. Sharma, is on record. We have no ground to disagree with, in view of which, we are unable to sustain the order of the State Commission which is modified to the extent that instead of decreed amount, the complainant shall be entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,11,000 along with interest from two months after the report of the Surveyor say from 1.3.1996 till the date of payment. A plea was also raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the period for rate of interest payable should be restricted to the period when the offer was made and not accepted by the complainant. Since in the mind of the complainant, the loss was more, insured amount was more and proposal of the Insurance Company was to make the complainant accept the proposed amount of Rs. 1,11,000 in full and final settlement, in the given circumstances, we will not blame the complainant for not having accepted the amount. Had the complainant known that he could accept the amount under protest and filed a complaint later, he would have done otherwise. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to agree with the proposal of the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company and, in our view, the complainant would be entitled to interest @ 10% p.a. from 1.3.1996 till the date of payment along with cost already awarded by the State Commission.
9. As far as the claim of the complainant with regard to subsequent loss is concerned like State Commission, we are inclined not to accept this plea for the simple reason that there is no separate policy taken by the complainant relating to consequent loss. The principle of indemnity is to restore the status of the complainant status quo ante with regard to the object insured which in this case was truck. With the amount of loss assessed by the Survey or and payment of interest, the complainant is not entitled to anything else.
10. The above payment shall be made by the Insurance Company within a period of 6 weeks from passing of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to take recourse to Sections 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act.
11. Both the appeals stand disposed of in above terms.