New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs INDERJEET KAUR

THIS first appeal has been filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, chandigarh, whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal. The facts in brief which led the complainant to approach the State Commission are as follows :

THE complainant got her truck insured with the opposite party Insurance Company for a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs, which truck was alleged to have been stolen in the year 1999 and an F.I.R. was lodged to that effect. THE fact of the theft had been brought to the notice of the Insurance Company immediately. THE complainant submitted the claim form claiming the insured value of Rs. 4 lakhs. Along with the claim form the complainant also enclosed a copy of the F.I.R. THEreafter, the complainant also submitted details regarding movement of the truck between 1.6.1999 to 13.6.1999. Since the Insurance Company did not settle the claim for a long time, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission claiming a sum of Rs. 9 lakhs which comprises Rs. 4 lakhs representing the sum assured, Rs. 3 lakhs for deficiency on service, loss of business etc. and Rs. 2 lakhs for mental agony and litigation expenses. In response to the notice issued by the State Commission the opposite party filed reply wherein it had admitted the factum of insurance of the truck in question and the sum assured. It is clear from the record that the first Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company submitted his report on 31st August, 1999 and thereafter another Surveyor was also appointed by the Insurance Company who assessed the loss at Rs. 3.35 lakhs. The opposite party No. 3, M/s. R.B. Hire Purchase and Finance Company had submitted an affidavit, as required by the Insurance Company, to the effect that the vehicle in question was stolen and not confiscated by itself, i.e. M/s. R.B. Hire Purchase and Finance Co. During the pendency of the complaint, i.e. on 26th February, 2001, the complainant received a cheque for Rs. 3.35 lakhs in part payment. The State Commission, after thoroughly going into the facts of the case, returned the finding that the complainant was not entitled to claim Rs. 3 lakhs on account of mental agony, loss of business, etc. As far as the claim of the complainant regarding the insured amount of Rs. 4 lakhs is concerned the State Commission held as under : "It is relevant to point out that the report of the Surveyor is based on his enquiry made from the market. The report also shows the condition of the truck being good as it claimed 35% ''No claim bonus''. The learned Counsel for the complainant contended that the value of the truck was already taken into consideration at the time of the insurance and no further depreciation should be allowed on the truck. Apart from it, the Surveyor did not file his own affidavit in support of his averment regarding making enquiry from the market regarding the price of the truck. The truck itself was not available due to being stolen and keeping into consideration the good condition of the truck already noted by the Surveyor, there was no reasonable basis for the Surveyor to assess the value of the truck less than the amount for which the truck was insured on 15th July, 1998. We are thus of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to get the entire amount of sum assured, i.e. a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs under the terms policy."

As far as award of compensation is concerned, the State Commission did not take into consideration the argument of the Insurance Company that the complainant did not give the affidavit to the effect that truck was not confiscated by the financier and held that the requisite information has already been submitted by the complainant vide her communication dated 17th April, 2001 annexing therewith a photocopy of the affidavit in which she mentioned the requisite information as required by the Insurance Company, which reads as under : "2. The above mentioned truck was stolen on 13/14.6.1999 (night hours) from Mohali, Punjab. 3. That the deponent is not in possession of the above mentioned truck since the date it was stolen from Mohali as mentioned above. 4. That the above mentioned truck was not being confiscated by the financier in any way."

This affidavit was of June, 2000 and this was the information that the Insurance Company required. In view of the above discussion, the State Commission held that since the relevant information that was required was already furnished by the complainant as also by the financier, as mentioned above, there was no valid justification on the part of the Insurance Company in not settling the claim, which amounts to deficiency in service and hence a compensation of Rs. 70,000/- was awarded to the complainant. The State Commission had thus allowed the claim amount of Rs. 4 lakhs plus Rs. 70,000/- for compensation, the total of which came to Rs. 4,70,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs. 3,35,000/- had already been paid to the complainant. The Insurance Company was directed to pay to the complainant the balance of Rs. 1,35,000/-, i.e. Rs. 4,70,000/- minus Rs. 3,35,000/- within a period of two months from the date of the award, failing which the above amount would carry interest at 10%.

FEELING aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the opposite party has came in appeal to this Commission. While admitting the appeal, we had issued notice to the respondent limited to the question, if the appellants are entitled to 5% from the value of the product as depreciation in terms of page 25 of the policy. We find that right from the day policy was taken on 15.7.1998 till the date of theft, i.e. 13-14.6.1999 the truck was in use. As a consequence thereof it cannot be said that the truck did not suffer any depreciation. We are of the considered view that the depreciation of 5% provided in the contract of insurance will be attracted. Consequently, we allow 5% depreciation as claimed by the Insurance Company. Rest of the order is sustained. The appeal stands disposed of. Appeal disposed of.