Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs P.S.LALU

THE opposite party namely the Branch Manager of the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Alappuzha and the Divisional Manager of the Company at Thiruvalla are the appellants.

THE complainant had insured his car for Rs. 1,70,000/- with the Company. Prior to the issuance of the policy the vehicle was inspected by the authorised Surveyor of the Company who assessed the value of the carat Rs. 1,50,000/-and air conditioner fitted in the vehicle at Rs. 20,000/- and hence the total value for Insurance was arrived at as above. During the currency of insurance the vehicle met with an accident and the Surveyor reported it as a case of total loss. But he delayed filing any report. After several followups as no favourable decision was communicated by the Company, the complainant approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha claiming Rs. 1,70,000/- as damages with 18% interest from 26.6.93 and Rs. 50,000/- for delay in settlement and a further amount of Rs. 50,000/- as damages for mental agony. While admitting the insurance policy and the accident the opposite parties contended that delay was due to the non-co-operation of the complainant. The car was an old and obsolete model, the complainant consented for a loss settlement for Rs. 1,30,000/- only on 25.3.94 after taking Rs. 20,000/- towards salvage value and the Head Office of the Company in Delhi approved the same and a claim voucher for Rs. 92,500/-was issued which he received on 24.6.94. Thus they denied any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The District Forum directed the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,30,000/- with 18% interest from 22.2.94 within one month from the date of the order viz.,17.11.94. Aggrieved by this order the opposite parties have come in appeal raising many grounds.

THE main ground argued before us is gross violation of the conditions of the policy by the complainant. It was argued that the passenger capacity of the car was only 4 +1, whereas at the time of the accident there were seven persons in the vehicle. We went in detail to all aspects of the case and perused the records. No exhibits or evidence were produced to prove the contentions that the vehicle was carrying seven persons. We could not see any violation of the conditions of the policy to deprive the complainant of the insurance claim. The Surveyor''s report has to be accepted in tine absence of evidence to show that is not correct. We do not see any reason to scale down the compensation awarded by the District Forum who had correctly relied on the Surveyor''s report. We hold that the complainant is entitled to Rs.1,30,000/- as compensation under the insurance policy. However we feel that the rate of interest is on the higher side. We reduce it to 12% per annum. We hereby direct the opposite parties viz. the Insurance Company to pay the complainant Rs.1,30,000/- with interest @ 12% from the date of the complaint. It was stated that a claim voucher for Rs. 92,500/- was approved by the Head Office of the Company and it was sent to the complainant by registered post which the complainant had received this amount and that only the balance is payable with interest as ordered above. The order of the District Forum is modified as above. There will be no order as to costs. Order modified.