State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Company Limited vs Sh. Jarnail Singh on 25 May, 2007
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND DEHRA DUN FIRST APPEAL NO. 254 / 2005 National Insurance Company Limited ......Appellant Versus Sh. Jarnail Singh .....Respondent Sh. Sudhanshu Dwivedi, Learned Counsel for the Appellant None for the Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President Ms. Luxmi Singh, Member Dated: 25.05.2007 ORDER
(Per:
Justice Irshad Hussain, President):
This is insurer's appeal against the order dated 19.10.2005 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Dehradun, partly allowing consumer complaint No. 30 / 2003 and directing the insurer to pay Rs. 89,000/- towards compensation with interest.
2. The amount of compensation awarded was in addition to Rs. 1,48,500/- already paid to the complainant against his claim arising out of theft of his vehicle. Surveyor of the insurer vide his report dated 29.06.2002 recommended settlement of claim for Rs. 1,48,500/-, which according to the complainant was received under protest. Therefore, by way of consumer complaint, further compensation and damages were claimed.
3. The District Forum rejected the defence plea that sum of Rs. 1,48,500/- had been received as compensation by the complainant towards full and final settlement of his claim. The District Forum went on to allow the complaint partly and awarded additional compensation of Rs. 89,000/- with interest, the amount which fell deficient to Rs. 2,37,500/-, the assessed cost of the vehicle per assessment made by the insurer's surveyor after deduction of depreciation to the tune of 5% from the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-, the sum insured of the vehicle. Insurer calls in question the legality of the impugned order awarding additional compensation to the complainant.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant - insurer and considered the written arguments submitted on behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for the insurer drew our attention to letter of undertaking; letter of subrogation and discharge voucher (Annexures Nos. 6, 7 & 9 of the affidavit of Sh. Atul Vishnoi, Senior Divisional Manager of the insurer in the original record) to bring home his point of view that the complainant had accepted the amount of Rs. 1,48,500/- as compensation towards full and final settlement of his claim and that the District Forum fell in error in coming to the conclusion that blank letter of undertaking, letter of subrogation with signature were submitted and that the discharge voucher in lieu of receipt of amount of Rs. 1,48,500/- had endorsement that the amount was received under protest by reserving the right to prefer a claim for proper compensation before the competent officer.
5. Having perused the record, we see no merit in the argument of the learned counsel. The reason being that the complainant placed on record the blank letter of undertaking, letter of subrogation (Paper Nos. 22 -
24), which indicate that the amount of compensation was not mentioned in these documents and the relevant columns in the previously typed documents were left blank for being sent to the insurer by the complainant. Paper No. 26 is the duplicate of the discharge voucher, which has an endorsement that the amount of Rs. 1,48,500/- was being received by the complainant under protest by reserving the right to make further claim for compensation. This duplicate voucher bear signature of the complainant on the revenue stamp also, whereas the so-called discharge voucher (Annexure - 9) relied upon by the insurer has no such signature on the revenue stamp and the printed form had been filled in by different writing and ink indicating that like the letter of undertaking and letter of subrogation, a blank discharge voucher with signature was sent by the complainant in response to the requirement made by the insurer vide letter dated 27.09.2002 (Paper No. 20). Perusal of these documents clearly indicate that the complainant was put to coercive bargaining and was made to submit blank papers referred above in view of the fact that the vehicle was stolen in the night between 01/02.11.2001 and despite the surveyor having submitted report dated 29.06.2002, no amount of compensation had been paid to the complainant as late as the month of September, 2002, putting the complainant in to financial difficulties and without any source of income. When the complainant was placed in such an untoward situation, he was put to coercive bargaining and had to submit the blank papers as stated above with his signatures and which were later on used to fill in the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,48,500/- having been received in full and final settlement of the claim by the complainant. The District Forum has properly appraised the material on record and came to a definite and correct conclusion that sum of Rs. 1,48,500/- had not been received towards full and final settlement of the claim and proceeded to award additional amount of compensation to the complainant.
6. It is not in dispute that the vehicle was insured for sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- and as per surveyor's observation, the depreciation admissible was only to the extent of 5% of the sum insured of the vehicle. The assessed cost of the vehicle was, thus, Rs. 2,37,500/- and keeping in view this aspect, the District Forum was also justified in coming to the conclusion that having assessed the cost of the vehicle as such, there was no occasion to determine the market value of the vehicle on the basis of second hand vehicle being sold by the dealers in the market at a price of around Rs. 1,45,000 - 1,50,000/-. The surveyor has not given a definite data and the name of any dealer, who had sold second hand vehicle of this make and model at a price of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The condition of the vehicle of the complainant was stated to be excellent and, therefore, there was absolutely no valid reason to determine the compensation at arbitrary value of Rs. 1,48,500/-. Therefore, the complainant was entitled to be indemnified for the loss on the basis of the assessed cost of the vehicle i.e. Rs. 2,37,500/-, out of which Rs. 1,48,500/- had already been paid to the complainant and by the impugned order, a direction was, therefore, rightly given to the insurer to pay further sum of Rs. 89,000/- to the complainant with interest.
7. In view of above, there being no merit in this appeal, the same is liable to be dismissed.
8. Appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.
(MS.
LUXMI SINGH) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN)