National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rp Surendra Kumar on 26 March, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4886 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 11/10/2013 in Appeal No. 926/2012 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh) 1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD.
HEAD OFFICE,
88 JANPATH ,CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110001 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RP SURENDRA KUMAR S/O R.PARTHASARATHI NADIU,
LORRY OWNER AP 06 U 8578,
D.NO-1-74,
R.S.L.S. GANDHI ROAD EXTENSION,
CHITTOOR - 517001 A.P ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Shri Shivansh Pandya, Proxy Counsel For the Respondent : Shri Anuj Kumar & Shri Vikram Gulia,
Advocates.
Dated : 26 Mar 2015 ORDER
Pronounced on 26th March' 2015
ORDER
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by petitioner against order dated 11.10.2013 passed by State Commission in FA No. 926 of 2012- R.P. Surendra Kumar Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.; by which while allowing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside and opposite party was directed to pay Rs. 2,25,000/- alongwith cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
Brief facts of the case are that complaint/respondent got his lorry AP 16 U 8758 insured by opposite party/petitioner for IDV of Rs. 3.00 lakhs for a period of one year from 24.9.2001 to 23.9.2002. On 18.5.2002, the vehicle met with an accident and report was also lodged with Police. Complainant approached opposite party with relevant documents to settle the claim. Surveyor also estimated loss. It was further submitted that opposite party without proper verification sent letter dated 27.9.2002 for settling claim much below the estimate whereas complainant submitted quotation for spare parts & repairs of Rs. 3,78,710/-. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that complaint was barred by limitation as complaint was filed on 17.3.2011- after nine years. It was further submitted that complainant was given option to accept claim at Rs. 1,22,250/- or Rs. 1,47,050/- by letter dated 27.9.2002 as there was violation in terms of policy but he did not accept and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parts, condoned delay in filing complaint but later on dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by complainant was allowed by Learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed.
Heard Learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.
Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that in spite of the fact that complaint was barred by limitation and in spite of offer by complainant for settling claim for Rs. 1,65,000/-, Learned State Commission committed error in granting Rs. 2,25,000/-, hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for respondent submitted that order passed by Learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence, revision petition be dismissed.
As far complaint being time barred is concerned, Learned District Forum while condoning delay, dismissed complaint on merits. Appeal was filed by complainant but Learned Counsel for petitioner has not placed any cross objection before me to show that objection regarding condonation of delay was raised before State Commission. In such circumstances, Learned State Commission rightly treated complaint under limitation and I do not find any force in submission of Learned Counsel for petitioner that complaint was barred by limitation.
As far compensation is concerned, surveyor has mentioned in his report that net loss on salvage basis was Rs. 1,65,000/-. Complainant vide letter dated 26.7.2002, sent his consent to opposite party for accepting Rs. 1,65,000/- but afterwards opposite party vide letter dated 27.9.2002 asked complainant to accept Rs. 1,22,250/- on salvage loss basis or Rs. 1,47,020/- on repair basis as there was unauthorized person travelling in the vehicle at the time of accident.
Learned State Commission, on non-standard basis, allowed Rs. 2,25,000/- as 75% of IDV value but as complainant vide letter dated 26.7.2002 already sent his consent for acceptance of claim for Rs. 1,65,000/- on salvage basis, he could not have been granted compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/-. At the same time, opposite party was also not entitled to reduce assessment of Rs. 1,65,000/- by 25% on non-standard basis. In such circumstances, complainant was entitled to Rs. 1,65,000/- and Learned State Commission committed error in allowing Rs. 2,25,000/- as compensation.
Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed and order dated 11.10.2013 passed by Learned State Commission in in FA No. 926 of 2012- R.P. Surendra Kumar Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.; is modified and compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- is reduced to Rs. 1,65,000/- and rest of the order is affirmed with no order as to costs.
-sd/-
......................J K.S. CHAUDHARI PRESIDING MEMBER