State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Md. Salimuddin Laskar on 17 January, 2010
IN THE COURT OF STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ASSAM CONSUMER APPEAL NO. 103 OF 2003 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., having its registered Head Office at New India Assurance Bldg.,87 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Port Bombay-400023 and Regional Office at G.S.Road, Bhangaghar, Guwahati-5, represented by its Divisional Office at Cachar, Silchar. . Appellant -Vs- Md. Salimuddin Laskar, Son of late Kutubuddin, Sonabarighat part-II, P.O. Sonabarighat, Cachar, Silchar, Assam . . Respondent For the appellant : Mr. R. K. Bhatra, Advocate For the respondent: Mr. B. Purkayastha, Advocate Date of Hearing: 23-7-2009 Date of Judgement: 17-01-2010 B E F O R E THE HONBLE ACTING PRESIDENT MRS. B. LASKAR. THE HONBLE MEMBER MR. M.K.BAROOAH. J U D G E M E N T
Mr. M.K. Barooah, Member
1. This appeal is filed by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. aginst the impugned judgement and order dated 21-7-03 passed by the learned District Foum, Cachar in C.P.Case No. 22/01 in the matter of Md. Salim Uddin laskar Vs The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company ltd. and ors.
2. The case in brief is that the complainant in the District Forum Md. Salim Uddin Laskar had purchased a Truck from M/s Surana Motors Ltd, Silchar who is the authorised dealer of TELCO LTD. under hire purchase agreement. The vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. who was the opposite party No. 1 in the District Forum for a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/-. Within the validity of that insurance period the vehicle met with an accident across the Assam border in Mizoram in which it was alleged being totally damaged. The complainant lodged a complaint with Kolasiv Police Station and intimated the opposite party No.
1. The opposite parties appointed surveyor who submitted a general report on the occurance and resultance damage. After physically inspecting and thoroughly checking the vehicle and the cause of nature of accident. Further, another surveyor was appointed by the insurance company who had reinspected the vehicle and assessed the requirement of repairing. Even a 3rd surveyor was appointed by the insurance company by appointing Mr. Dilip Dhar and after repairing of the vehicle and reinspection report was prepared and submitted. After such survey and inspection finally against claim of Rs. 2,02219.19 as surveyors recommended amount for settlement the technical department of the Divisional office had approved Rs. 86,445/- (arising at this amount of Rs. 86,445/- the Divisional Ofice has made several changes by erasing defects and overwriting it). Accordingly, this amount of Rs. 86,445/- was offered against the final settlement amount and shown as paid to the complainant but handed over the demand draft to Surana Motors Ltd, Silchar who had paid this amount to Telco Ltd for depositing in the loan account of the complainant against his outstanding dues. The complainant then accepted this amount by putting his signature in the discharge voucher. He had submitted several representations to the Divisional Manager of the insurance company stating his objection in payment of meager amount against his actual claim. The opposite party, insurance company had taken a plea that once the discharge voucher was signed by the complainant as the final settlement of his claim the question of further payment had not arisen.
3. The learned District Forum had passed the order that opposite party insurance company had shown deficiency of service for not being the actual cost of repairing to Rs. 2,08,224.72 to the insured against his repairing cost of his vehicle. The case was therefore allowed on contest and awarded Rs. 1,21,780/- after deduction of Rs. 86,445/- and interest @ 14% per annum till the date of receive of payment under objection of Rs. 86,445/- along with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and cost of Rs. 3000/-. If that amount is not paid within 45 days they shall also be liable to pay interest at the aforesaid rate from the date of judgement on 21-7-03 till reliasation.
4. Being aggrieved on that judgement the opposite party, New India Assurance Company had filed this appeal before this Commission. We have gone through the relevant records and heard the learned counsels of both the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant, insurance company had argued that once the discharge voucher is issued and the complainant/respondent had accepted that amount question of further increase of amount does not arise. The amount paid is arrived after spot verification/inspection by the surveyor. As per the hire purchase agreement the insurance company released the amount to the insured through the financier. In view of that the impugned judgement and order of the learned District Forum is liable to be set-aside. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the amount sanctioned was far less than actual cost of repairing. He had submitted and referred a judgement of the Honble Supreme Court reported in (1999)6 Supreme Court Cases 400 in Civil Appeal No. 534 of 1994 in the matter of United India Insurance Vs- Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills where the Apex Court had held that mere execution of discharge voucher and acceptance of insurance claim would be not estop the insured from making further claim from the insurer. After hearing both the parties we have found that the complaint/respondent was not given opportunity even to receive the sanction amount of Rs. 86,445/- to pay the repairing cost as this amount was handed over to the dealer. In such a situation the complainant/respondent had no opportunity to earn more from the movable assets taken on loan for his own livelihood. In such circumstances self employment are frustrated to which the financier showed scant regards.
5. In our view what the surveyor had assessed the loss at Rs. 2,02219.19 the sanction of Rs.
86,445/- appears to be less. From the exhibit C of the district records we had come to conclusion that the insurance first wanted to settle the claim by issuing a bigger amount but subsequently erased such figure and confirmed themselves at Rs. 86,445/- only. No where it has been mentioned how the amount recommended by the surveyor was arbitrary reduced except a small note without any proof is recorded that a few items were repaired instead of replacement. In such a circumstances the difference about two figures of recommendation and acceptance is quite wide. We are satisfied that Rs. 1,50,000/- as repairing cost will meet the ends of justice. The appellant, insurance company will pay a revised amount of Rs. 64,335/- as repairing cost insisted of Rs. 1,21,780/- as awarded by the District Forum. The other awards including the interest awarded by the learned District Forum will remain same.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
7. Send back the original records to the District Forum along with a copy of this judgement for their necessary action.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEMBER