DAUDBHAI IBRAHIMBHAI KUSKIVALA vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

BY way of this complaint, the complainant has prayed for own damage claim in the sum of Rs. 5,50,000 with interest @ 12% p.a. from 21.3.1998, the date of the accident till payment, compensation in the sum of Rs. 25,000 for mental agony and hardship and cost quantified at Rs. 5,000 on following brief allegations of facts.

THE complainant has been carrying on business of transport and for that purpose he had his truck (vehicle in question) bearing registration No. GJ-9-T-8396 which was insured with the opponent Insurance Company for Rs. 5,50,000 as per the policy particulars set out in para 1 of the complaint. During the period of insurance the truck met with an accident on 21.3.1998 and was completely damaged on account of fire. THE complainant immediately lodged claim with the opponent Insurance Company and submitted papers as stated in the complaint. Opponent Insurance Company appointed Surveyor Mr. Parag A. Shah who has also surveyed the matter. Three months thereafter, i.e., on or around 16.6.1998, opponent Insurance Company worte letter to the complainant for accepting Rs. 4,50,000 in full and final settlement of the complainant''s claim. THE complainant replied the said communication by letter dated 19.6.1998 insisting upon the claim of Rs. 5,50,000. As the opponent Insurance Company did not sanction the claim as submitted by the complainant, the complainant filed the present complaint on 19.8.1999 for the prayers as aforesaid. Opponent Insurance Company has resisted the complaint inter alia on the ground that there is no deficiency in service on its part, that the truck in question was purchased in the month of June 1996, that the opponent Insurance Company was required to process the claim as per the terms and conditions of Section I (Loss or Damage), that Surveyor was immediately appointed, that Surveyor Mr. Nilesh Shah carried spot survey and Surveyor Mr. Parag Shah surveyed the claim and submitted report dated 26.5.1998 and suggested for settlement of the claim on total loss basis at Rs. 4,50,000 while assessing the salvage at Rs. 60,000. Thus, the net loss was assessed at Rs. 3,90,000 which was offered to the complainant and that under all these circumstances, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent Insurance Company. It has, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

We have gone through the aforesaid pleadings and the papers placed on record by the parties. We have also gone through the survey reports submitted by both the parties. It is not in dispute that Mr. Iqbal Tada has not been appointed as Surveyor by the opponent Insurance Company but he appears to have been appointed by the complainant. The opponent Insurance Company had appointed surveyors stated in their affidavit in reply. Report of Mr. Parag A. Shah has also been placed on record. Mr. Iqbal Tada has not filed affidavit in support of the report. Besides, on going through the report, we find that Mr. Tada has proceeded for consideration of the value on the basis of appreciation as also depreciation. There is no evidence to show that the price of the truck in question had appreciated by passage of time. By virtue of the decisions of the honourable National Commission in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Anil Lamba, reported in I (2003) CPJ 229 (NC), and National Insurance Company Limited v. M/s. Winner Chorates Private Limited reported in II (2004) CPJ 1 (NC)=2003 (2) CPC P. 355, report of the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company will have to be taken into consideration and also will have to be preferred to the report of the aforesaid private Surveyor.

IT is not in dispute that the opponent Insurance Company''s Surveyor has proceeded for settlement of the value of the truck in question on the date of the accident on the basis of depreciated value. IT is also not in dispute that the truck was purchased for Rs. 5,45,000 and accessories which were not the subject matter of insurance were to the extent of Rs. 5,000. Since more than three years have passed between the date of purchase of the truck and date of accident, depreciation @ 15% is required to be deducted as per settled law. That would give the value of the truck on the date of accident at Rs. 467,500. The Surveyor has deducted Rs. 1,500 by way of excess loss which would give the value at Rs. 4,66,000. The salvage has been assessed by the Surveyor of the opponent Insurance Company at Rs. 60,000. If that amount is deducted it will give out net value of the truck in question on the date of the accident at Rs. 4,06,000. As against that the opponent Insurance Company has offered Rs. 3,90,000 which offer cannot be said to be so low as to amount to deficiency in service. The complainant has prayed for compensation on the head of mental agony and hardship. Facts narrated hereinabove do not warrant for award of such compensation as the complainant did not accept the amount as offered by the opponent insurance and the said amount is lying with the opponent Insurance Company. Therefore, in view of what is stated above, the complainant will be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of the New India Assurance Company Limited v. Kaushnumma Begum, reported in I (2001) SLT 300=I (2001) ACC151 (SC)=(2001) 2 SCC P. 9.

IT is not in dispute that the truck in question was hypothecated with Modasa Road Transport Coop. Society Limited. Hence, we pass following order: ORDER The opponent Insurance Company is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 4,06,000 with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till payment. The opponent Insurance Company will pay the said amount to Modasa Road Transport Coop. Society Limited within 8 weeks from today to be credited in the account of the complainant with the said bank. IT will be open to the complainant to settle his account with the said society. This complaint will stand disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. Complaint disposed of.