State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Oriental Insurance Company vs Ramesh Chand Negi on 3 January, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA CAMP AT NAHAN. First Appeal No. 173/2010 Date of Decision: 03.01.2012 The Oriental Insurance Company, SCO No.10-A, Sector 7, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through The Divisional Insurance Company, Divisional Office, Mythe Estate, Upper Kaithu, Shimla-3 Through its Senior Divisional Manager. Appellant Versus Shri Ramesh Chand Negi S/O Shri Rattan Singh Negi, Resident of Village and P.O.Shalai, Tehsil Shalai, District Sirmour, H.P. Respondent For the Appellant: Mr. J.S. Bagga, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate . First Appeal No. 280/2010 Date of Decision: 03.01.2012 Ramesh Chand Negi S/O Shri R.S. Negi, R/O Village P.O. Shillai, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P. Appellant Versus The Oriental Insurance Company, Through its Branch Manager, SCO 10-A, Secor 7C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh To be served through Divisonal Office: Mythe Estate, Kaithu, Shimla-3 Through its Divisional Manager. Respondent Coram Honble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh (Retd.), President Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant: Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. J.S. Bagga, Advocate . O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh (Retd.), President (Oral) By this order we are disposing of two appeals, whose number and particulars are mentioned in the title of this order as both the appeals arise out of the same order of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Sirmour at Nahan, i.e. Order dated 10.03.2010. We shall refer to appellant-Shri Ramesh Chand Negi (appellant in F.A. No.280/2010) and appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.(appellant in F.A. No.173/2010) as complainant and opposite party, respectively.
Complainant who owned Tata Sumo bearing registration No. HP-17B-0300, got the same insured with the opposite party for a sum of Rs.4,10,000/- against own damage on insured declared value basis. The policy was operative from 18.10.2006 to 17.10.2007. On 12.09.2007, when the aforesaid policy was in force, the insured vehicle of the complainant, met with an accident and was totally damaged. Accident was reported ..................................................................................
Whether reports of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment to the opposite party by the complainant. A surveyor deputed by the opposite party, namely Shri R.S. Gill, submitted report per which the vehicle was totally damaged. He assessed the loss at Rs.4,10,000/-. According to him, the value of the salvage was Rs.1,00,000/-. So, he deduced the amount of salvage from the insured value. Also, he deducted a sum of Rs.1,000/- on account of policy clause and worked out the claim amount at Rs.3,09,000/-.
Opposite party did not pay the claim and took the plea that Shri Madan Singh Thakur, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, did not possess a valid driving licence, as according to the opposite party, the licence was valid up to July, 2000 and it had not been renewed beyond that date.
Learned Forum on the basis of the evidence and material relied upon by the parties, concluded that the person who was driving the vehicle, namely Shri Madan Singh Thakur, possessed a valid and effective driving licence. Forum ordered the payment of Rs.3,09,000/- on account of insurance money with interest and also compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/-
and litigation expenses quantified at Rs.1500/-.
Complainant is aggrieved by the order of learned Forum to the extent it directs the deduction of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of the value of the salvage. The complainant's plea is that he is prepared to handover the salvage to the opposite party and therefore, the opposite party should pay the entire insurance money, which is equivalent to the insured declared value, i.e. Rs.4,10,000/-.
Opposite party in its appeal seeks the setting aside of the order of the learned Forum on the ground that the man in driver's seat at the time of the accident had a licence, which expired in the year 2000 and the same had not been renewed thereafter.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
We find no material on record in support of opposite party's contention that Shri Madan Singh Thakur, who was admittedly driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, except a writing by Registration & Licensing Authority Shimla, to the effect that licence was valid up to 02.01.2000, when issued. The document does not say that the licence had not been renewed after 2nd January, 2000.
As against the aforesaid document relied upon by the opposite party, there is opposite party's own document, i.e. Surveyor's report, according to which the licence had been valid up to 22nd March, 2008. Also, the copy of driving licence is available on record, which shows that the licence stood renewed up to 22nd March, 2008. Endorsement of renewal on the licence can be taken to be true, in view of the surveyor's report, per which the licence was valid up to 22nd March, 2008. Accident took place on 12.09.2007. Therefore, opposite party's contention that the licence was not valid at the time, when the accident took place, cannot be accepted.
Coming to the second appeal, filed by the complainant, admittedly this was a case of insurance based on insured declared value of the vehicle. It is true that in the policy itself, which is Annexure-B, the amount for which the vehicle was insured is not mentioned, yet, the surveyor in his report, aforesaid, has specifically written that the vehicle was insured on insured declared value basis for a sum of Rs.4,10,000/- and it had been completely damaged. Now when the vehicle had been totally damaged as per surveyor's report, no deduction ought to have been made in the total insured value on account of value of salvage.
The learned counsel representing the opposite party (appellant) says that as per the report of surveyor, complainant (insured) had agreed to settle the claim on cash loss basis for Rs.2,32,782/-and therefore, he cannot be ordered to be paid the entire amount of insurance money. Submission has been noticed only to be rejected. First, no such plea has been taken in the reply by the opposite party. Secondly, once the opposite party had repudiated the claim in its entirety, it cannot be heard to say that the complainant is bound by the alleged consent given by him to the surveyor.
As a result of the above discussion, appeal filed by the opposite party, i.e. Oriental Insurance Company is dismissed. Appeal filed by the complainant-Ramesh Chand Negi, i.e. F.A. No.280/2010, is allowed and it is ordered that the insurance company shall pay a sum of Rs.4,09,000/- to the complainant on account of the insurance together with the amount of compensation and litigation expenses plus interest, at the rate, mentioned in the order of the Forum. The salvage, shall, however, be returned by the complainant to the opposite party along with ignition key and documents of the vehicle.
Appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) (Retd.) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member ( Prem Chauhan ) Member January 3, 2012.
NMehta)