State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Company Limited ... vs Samsung Corporation on 30 November, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 72 / 2009
1. United India Insurance Company Limited
having one of its Divisional Office at Haldwani
and also having one of its Divisional Office at
17 DMA House, Medical Association Road
Daryaganj, New Delhi - 110002 through its Authorised Signatory
2. United India Insurance Company Limited
having its Regional Office at Ratna Complex
Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun through its Authorised Signatory
......Appellants
Versus
Samsung Corporation
Dhauliganga Hydro Electric Project
Village Siyakuri, P.O. Elagar
Tehsil Dharchula, District Pithoragarh
through Sh. Y.H. Choi, Project Manager
......Respondent
Smt. Anjali Gusain, Learned Counsel for the Appellants
Sh. R.S. Negi, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Mrs. Kusum Lata Sharma, Member
Dated: 30/11/2011
ORDER
Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President (Oral):
This is insurer's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 11.02.2009 passed by the District Forum, Pithoragarh in consumer complaint No. 35 of 2007. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the insurance company to pay the insured amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- of tipper No. UA05 - 0865 to the respondent
- complainant within a period of one month, failing which the amount 2 was directed to carry interest @6% p.a. from the date of order till payment.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is a multinational company and was engaged in construction of H.R. tunnel for Dhauliganga H.E. Project at Dharchula, District Pithoragarh. The complainant was allotted site for construction at Village Siyakuri, where the complainant had made his portal work area. At the site, the complainant used to park all his vehicles. On 14.09.2003 at about 8:00 p.m., due to flash flood and falling of heavy boulders, the whole portal area washed away and all the materials etc. including the tipper had washed away. The tipper was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited for the period from 16.11.2002 to 15.11.2003 at sum of Rs. 7,50,000/-. The complainant gave intimation of the occurrence to the insurance company, who appointed Sh. Girish Joshi, surveyor and loss assessor for spot survey. The complainant completed all the formalities, but the claim was not paid. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Pithoragarh.
3. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the complainant has not lodged any FIR of the accident and the complainant has also not submitted the metrological report. The insured tipper was 2001 November model and the same was insured for Rs. 7,50,000/-. It was further pleaded that there has to be depreciation @20% in the value of the vehicle and also deduction @25% to 40% for not supplying the salvage and other deductions and the compensation is to be computed accordingly.
34. The District Forum vide impugned judgment and order dated 11.02.2009, allowed the consumer complaint in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed this appeal.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
6. The factum of the occurrence has not been denied by the insurance company. The spot surveyor Sh. Girish Joshi in his report dated 16.10.2003 has opined that the vehicle is inside the heavy boulders and mud came with Raungti Nala and nothing is visible at the spot. It is important to mention here that in the damage to portal work area of the complainant due to flash flood on 14.09.2003, the car of the complainant insured with The Oriental Insurance Company Limited had also damaged and the said insurance company has paid a sum of Rs. 16,59,943/- to the insured towards full and final settlement of the claim. Thus, the factum of the occurrence is fully proved. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the insurance company for not submitting the metrological report. We are of the view that since in the occurrence, the insured tipper was damaged and hence there was no need of any metrological report and the insurance company has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant.
7. However, we agree to the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the insurance company that the District Forum has not considered the depreciation aspect and has also not considered the fact that the insurance company is not in a position to get the salvage of the insured vehicle, because the vehicle had been washed away and on the said account, there need to be some deduction from the assured amount. We are of the view that the insurance company is entitled to 4 make deduction @20% from the assured sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- towards depreciation in the value of the vehicle and the insurance company is further entitled to make deduction @20% towards the value of the salvage. Thus, the appeal is to be partly allowed and the order impugned is to be modified accordingly.
8. Appeal is partly allowed. Order impugned dated 11.02.2009 passed by the District Forum is modified and the appellant - insurance company is entitled to make deduction @20% from the insured amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- towards depreciation and further @20% towards the value of the salvage and is hereby directed to pay the remaining amount after deduction to the respondent - complainant together with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. No order as to costs.
(SMT. KUSUM LATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL) K