State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Sh. Sunder Singh Chauhan on 4 July, 2006
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARANCHAL - 4 - STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARANCHAL DEHRA DUN FIRST APPEAL NO. 46 / 2006 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ......Appellant Versus Sh. Sunder Singh Chauhan .....Respondent Smt. Anjali Gusain, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Sh. Pradeep Barthwal, Learned Counsel for the Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President Surendra Kumar, Member Ms. Luxmi Singh, Member Dated: 04.07.2006 ORDER
(Per:
Mr. Justice Irshad Hussain, President):
This is insurer's appeal against the order dated 23.05.1997 passed by the District Forum, Pauri Garhwal thereby allowing the complaint filed by the insured and directing the insurer to pay Rs. 2,50,000/-, the value of the vehicle for which it had been insured; Rs. 500/- as expenses of the litigation and interest @15% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint in case the said amount was not paid within a period within a period of one month from the said order.
2. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The controversy raised in the appeal pertain to the propriety of the impugned order in awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/-, the amount at which the vehicle, which had been washed away in the floods, was insured and also in regard to the interest awarded @15% p.a.
3. It was not in dispute that the vehicle insured was washed away in floods and could not be retrieved. Insurer's surveyor Sh. Pawan Kumar Gupta submitted survey report on 17.03.1994 and on total loss basis assessed the value of the vehicle at Rs. 2,10,000/- keeping in view that the vehicle had been used for about nine months after taking the insurance cover and as such the market value of the make and model of the vehicle in the open market was about Rs. 2,10,000/- to Rs. 2,15,000/- depending on the condition of the vehicle. There can be no doubt that during the period of nine months after taking the insurance cover on 29.10.1992, the value of the truck depreciated by wear and tear. It is evident from the surveyor's report that the vehicle was first of all registered on 19.01.1987 and was thus a more than five years old model at the time of the accident which took place on 23.07.1993. The vehicle was being used for transporting sand and bajri from river bed which definitely has a rough terrain. By such use of the vehicle, there is wear and tear and when the vehicle at the time of taking insurance cover was valued at Rs. 2,50,000/-, the District Forum fell in error in not taking into consideration the depreciation in the value of the vehicle by further use of the same for about nine months after taking the insurance cover. In a situation like this, we find force in the argument of the Learned Counsel for the insurer that the District Forum was not justified in allowing the complaint in toto and directing the insurer to pay compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-, the value at which the vehicle was insured on 29.10.1992.
4. In view of above, the question which now arises is as to what was the appropriate market value of the vehicle at the time of the accident. The surveyor opined that the market value of the make and model of the vehicle was about Rs. 2,10,000/- to Rs. 2,15,000/- depending on the condition of the vehicle. No exampler in support of the opinion was mentioned in the report by the surveyor. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept that the market value of the vehicle was Rs. 2,10,000/-, as finally assessed on total loss basis by the surveyor. Considering the totality of the circumstances of the case, the make and model of the vehicle and also the period of about nine months during which the vehicle had been used after taking the insurance cover, we are of the view that 10% (Rs. 25,000/-) depreciation to assess the value of the vehicle at the time of the accident appear just and reasonable. On this basis, the value of the vehicle assessed on total loss basis come to Rs. 2,50,000 - Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 2,25,000/- and the insured was entitled to be indemnified to that extent only for loss of his vehicle together with reasonable interest.
5. The interest was awarded @15% p.a. w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint in the event of default to pay the compensation awarded within a period of one month. It was pointed out at the bar that sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- was paid by the insurer after the order was passed by the District Forum. It need to be stated that the insurer's surveyor submitted report on 17.03.1994 and despite this the assessed value of Rs. 2,10,000/- was also not paid immediately after submission of the report by the surveyor. Therefore, the insurer is liable to pay reasonable interest on the amount of compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/- as assessed by us above and in our view it would be just and proper to award interest @9% p.a. on the said sum. No doubt the interest shall be payable from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment.
6. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 23.05.1997 is modified as below:
Insurer is held liable to pay Rs. 2,25,000/- as compensation on total loss basis.
Insurer is also held liable to pay Rs. 500/- as expenses of the litigation awarded by the District Forum.
Insurer is further held liable to pay interest @9% p.a. on the said amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till the date of the payment and the interest is to be calculated after taking into consideration the payment of Rs. 2,10,000/- already made by the insurer subsequent to the order passed by the District Forum.
Parties to bear their own costs of the appeal.
(MS.
LUXMI SINGH) (SURENDRA KUMAR) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN)