State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kamlesh Rani W/O Sh. Jagdish Chand, R/O ... vs Reliance General Insurance Company ... on 27 April, 2012
F.A. No. 667 of 2008 1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
PLOT NO. 1037, SECTOR 37-A DAKSHAN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 667 of 2008
Date of institution : 2.7.2008
Date of decision : 27.04.2012
Kamlesh Rani W/o Sh. Jagdish Chand, R/o Street No. 10/5, Guru Gobind
Singh Nagar, Bathinda.
Appellant
Versus
1. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 19 Reliance Centre,
Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038 through
its Manager/C.M.D.
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, C/o Megma Leasing
Ltd., Ist Floor, Above City Centre, G.T. Road, Near Tinkony, Bathinda
through its Authroised person.
3. Megma Leasing Ltd. Ist Floor, above City Centre, G.T. Road, Near
Tinkony, Bathinda through its Manager.
...Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated
19.5.2008 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda.
Before:-
Sh. Jagroop Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member.
Sh. Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Argued by:-
For the appellant : Sh. Mukand Gupta, Advocate
For respondents No. 1&2: Sh. Hitender Kansal, Advocate for
Sh. P.M. Goyal, Advocate
For respondent No. 3 : None
JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This is complainant's appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned District Consumer Disputes F.A. No. 667 of 2008 2 Redressal Forum, Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide impugned order dated 19.5.2008 vide which the following directions are given:-
"17. In the result, complaint is allowed against opposite parties No. 1&2 with costs of Rs. 1,500/-. Opposite Parties are directed to do as under:-
(i) Opposite Parties No. 1&2 to pay interest amount of the complainant on Rs. 1,81,601/- @ 9% P.A. from 21.8.2007 to 21.1.2008 to opposite party No. 3.
(ii) Opposite Parties No. 1&2 to pay balance claim amount of the complainant i.e. Rs. 52,101/- alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. from 22.1.2008 till payment to opposite party No. 3.
(iii) In case, the amount as referred to above is paid by opposite parties No. 1&2, opposite Party No. 3 would adjust it in the loan account of the complainant. In case any amount out of the amount received by it is found excess, it would remit the same to the complainant within 7 days from the date of receipt, failing which it would be liable to pay interest on this remaining amount @ 9% P.A. till payment.
(iv) Compliance of this order be made by opposite parties No. 1&2 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order."
2. According to the complainant, she had got her new Canter insured from the opposite parties/respondents for Rs. 5,38,650/-. The terms and conditions of the policy were not supplied to her. The vehicle was purchased on 1.1.2007 and it met with an accident on 20.5.2007 when it was damaged. The complainant took the vehicle to M/s Krishna Auto, who is authorized dealer who assessed the repair costs as Rs. 2,70,955/-. But F.A. No. 667 of 2008 3 opposite parties did not pay the amount but obtained her signature on blank papers.
3. According to her, the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 2,18,601/- after deducting the salvage value of Rs. 25000/-. Net loss was mentioned to be 1,93,401/-. He was however alleged to have submitted the report arbitrarily to pay the amount of Rs. 1,45,050.75 paise. She therefore prayed for the compensation of Rs. 2,70,955/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a., Rs. 25000/- towards mental agony and pains and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs.
4. The opposite parties/respondents contested the complaint admitting that the vehicle was insured with them and was reported to have met with an accident. It was admitted that the claim was lodged with them upon which a surveyor was appointed, who assessed the liability at Rs. 1,93,401/- However after deducting the salvage value, he assessed the net loss at 1,45,050.75 paise. Since the complainant was not ready to get her vehicle repaired, she was said to have given her consent to receive Rs. 1,29,500/- towards full and final settlement of her claim. The said amount was paid to opposite party No. 3 with whom the vehicle was hypothecated. It was also alleged that the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint and she was estopped by her act and conduct from filing the complaint. It was alleged that having already received the full amount of compensation, she was guilty of concealment of facts.
5. The vehicle was hypothecated with opposite party No. 3 from whom the loan was obtained by the complainant while purchasing the vehicle. According to them, the loan was being repaid by the complainant in installments, that the complainant in the month of January 2008 signed the consent letter and settled the matter for Rs. 1,29,500/- the cheque for which amount was paid to them. Other allegations were denied.
5. Both the parties produced evidence and documents in support of their respective version.
F.A. No. 667 of 2008 4
6. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavit/documents produced on the file by them, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint against O.Ps No. 1&2 vide impugned order dated 19.5.2008 against which the complainant has filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation.
7. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record including the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the appellant.
8. The learned District Forum, through the impugned order has held that the consent form was obtained by opposite parties by coersion the facts were not told to the complainant, her signatures were obtained on blank consent form and blanks were filled later on. It was held that the complainant never agreed to receive the amount of Rs. 1,29,500/- towards full and final settlement of her claim.
9. The findings recorded by the learned District Forum have not been challenged by the opposite parties by filing an appeal.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the authorized dealer had assessed the amount of Rs. 2,70,955/- for the repair of the vehicle. According to her, the learned District Forum did not award the said amount and also did not award damages on account of mental agony and for delay in settling her claim. She has also contended that award of Rs. 1500/- as litigation costs is too meager as against the amount of Rs. 10,000/- claimed by her. These contentions have been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
11. Learned District Forum dealt with these contentions in para 15 of the order. It was held that the estimate given by manufacturing company cannot be accepted because no mention was made in it whether the damaged parts were repairable or not and further they had estimated Rs. 38,200/- as labour charges which according to the surveyor was only Rs. 5000/-. Further the F.A. No. 667 of 2008 5 salvage value of Rs. 25,000/- was not deducted by the dealer. Otherwise also the report of the surveyor carries much weight as against the report of manufacturer or repairer. Learned District Forum therefore rightly assessed the amount of Rs. 1,81,601/- payable by the opposite parties to the complainant.
12. The learned District Forum has allowed the interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 21.8.2007 to 21.1.2008 on the said amount of compensation. The vehicle had met with an accident on 20.5.2007 and thereafter the surveyor has assessed the loss. The learned District Forum therefore rightly allowed the interest till the amount of Rs. 1,29,500/- was paid. On the remaining amount of Rs. 52101/- the interest has been allowed @ 9% per annum till its payment to opposite party No. 3.
13. As regards the harassment and pain suffered by the complainant due to delay in paying the amount, the payment of interest would take care of the same and therefore no separate amount be given towards harassment and pain.
14. Learned District Forum allowed the litigation cost of Rs. 1500/- to the complainant. The cost of litigation as awarded by the District Forum is too meager than the cost incurred by the complainant in pursuing the litigation of this case. The case was filed by the complainant by engaging a counsel who had been pursuing the case, we cannot believe that any advocate would these days be available to the complainant on a fee of 1500/-. Further the complainant must have spent a handsome amount in preparing the documents and attending the hearing of the case. We therefore, enhance the amount of litigation cost from Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 10,000/-.
15. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the appeal succeeds partly and the same is accordingly allowed. The litigation cost is enhanced from Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 10,000/- as awarded by the District Forum. F.A. No. 667 of 2008 6 The opposite party shall also pay Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs of this appeal.
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (JASBIR SINGH GILL) MEMBER April 27, 2012. (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) Rupinder MEMBER