New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs JAGDISH M.MEENA

BY way of this appeal the original opponent The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has brought under challenge the order dated 13th June, 1996 rendered by the learned Ahmedabad City Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Complaint No. 1478/93.

IT was the complainant''s case that the complainant No. 1 being the owner and complainant No. 2 being the financier had taken comprehensive policy from the opponent Insurance Company in respect of the truck in question for the period from 21.3.1990 to 20.3.1991 on 20.12.1990. The truck met with an accident resulting into damage to the said truck. Surveyor was oppointed and ultimately, as the claim was not settled the complainant had to file complaint claimining Rs. 97,900/- from the oppnent Insurance Company. The complainant also prayed for compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-, damages in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-, and interest @ 24%. The opponent resisted the complaint inter alia on the ground that the opponent offered the amount as per assessment of the Surveyor and has called upon the complainant to return the voucher duly discharged for enabling payment to the complainant, but the complainant refused to do so. Hence according to the opponent Insurance Company there was no deficiency in service.

After considering the rival facts and the material placed on record the learned Forum partly accepted the stand of the complainant and directed the oppenent Insurance Company to pay Rs. 53,131/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from 1.4.1992, compensation in the sum of Rs. 7,500/-and cost in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- .

DURING the course of hearing of this matter the parties submitted joint pursis for appointment of a third Surveyor with a view to resolve the dispute regarding assessment of damage to the truck. This Commission had occasion to pass following order dated 29th August, 2001 : "When this appeal came up for hearing learned Advocates appearing for the parties jointly submitted that on 17th July, 1997 they had an occasion to give consent draft order for appointment of third Surveyor so as to resolve the dispute with regard to assessment, between the parties. The complainant claimed Rs. 81,740/- towards Own Damage Claim whereas the Surveyor earlier appointed assessed the loss at Rs. 15,650/-. Bearing in mind the wide difference in the amount claimed and the amount assessed the parties agreed, for appointment of a third impartial Senior Surveyor for reassessment of damages as the assessment involved special expertise in the field. Today the learned Advocates have disclosed that they propose to appoint Mr. Kirtibhai C. Patel as the third Surveyor as aforesaid and they will bear the cost of such Surveyor. Hence following order is passed : Mr. Kirtibhai C. Patel is hereby appointed as the third Surveyor upon agreement between the parties. He will submit his report within 8 weeks from receipt of the copy of this order. The parties will be bound by the assessment of the said Surveyor without any other or further objection in respect of assessment of damages. Both the parties will deposit a sum of Rs. 1,000/- each for the cost and remuneration of the said Surveyor in the first instance or pay the amount by A/c payee cheque direct to the Surveyor."

Now the Surveyor has given his report assessing the damage at Rs. 31,030/- which amount is binding to the parties. At the hearing both the learned Advocates conceded that the impugned order with regard to amount of damage to the truck might be modified accepting the report of the Surveyor.

THE only dispute, which has remained is with regard to rate of interest and compensation awarded by the learned Forum. Mr. S.J. Mehta, learned Advocate appearing for the complainant has tried to support the award of interest @ 18% by referring to the decision of Hon''ble National Commission in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. C.U. Ahmed Shafee reported in (2002) CJ 214. In that case the District Forum did not grant cost of transport from the scene of occurrence to the garage amounting to Rs. 7,250/-. It also did not grant any other relief for loss caused on account of non-settlement of the claim. Bearing in mind such peculiar circumstances, the Hon''ble National Commission has granted interest @ 18% p.a. Present is not the case of such special circumstances. As a matter of fact the opponent Insurance Company did appoint a Surveyor and the dispute that remained before the learned Forum and for that matter before this Commission was merely with regard to assessment of loss. It is true that with a view to resolve this dispute a third Surveyor was appointed. It is also true that the survey report awas acceptable to both the parties at the same time there are no special circumstances which would warrant grant of interest @ 18%. We, therefore, propose to adopt normal practice followed by this Commission for awarding interest. We, accordingly propose to reduce the rate of interest from 18% to 10%. Insofar as compensaton is concerned by consent of the learned Advocates we propose to reduce it from Rs. 7,500/- to Rs. 5,000/- . Insofar as cost is concerned we propose to maintain the order of cost as Rs. 2,000/- . In the result, following order is passed : Impugned order dated 13th June, 1996 rendered by the learned Ahmedabad City Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Complaint No. 1478/93 is modified as under : Opponent THE New India Assurance Company Ltd. (appellant herein), is directed to pay to the complainants Rs. 31,030/- with interest @ 10% p.a. from 1.4.1992 till payment and compensation and cost respectively in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- within 4 weeks from today. This appeal is accordingly partly allowed with no further order as to cost. Appeal partly allowed.