New India Assurance Co Ltd vs SANGAT SINGH CHAUHAN

APPELLANT was the opposite party before the State Commission, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant Mr. Sangat Singh Chauhan had obtained a truck, after getting loan from the 2nd respondent Bank, which was insured with the appellant Insurance Company. The truck met wth an accident on 26. 7. 1992 resulting it in falling on the houses of three villagers damaging their houses. Matter was reported to the Police as also to the Insurance Company. Insurance Company appointed a surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs. 42,883 whereas the complainant was of the view that the claim should be settled on the basis of repairs got carried out by him. It is in these circumstances that a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 1,43,350 along with interest @ 18% p. a. , Rs. 5,000 for compensation for harassment and Rs. 3,000 by way of costs. Aggrieved by this order this appeal has been filed before us. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length. There is no dispute that the surveyor had assessed the loss at Rs. 42,883. 11 whereas the case of the complainant before the State Commission was that he is entitled to the full value as outlined by him.

In his complaint and affidavit of the total amount claimed, there are three parts to this. First is with regard to the third party claim amounting to Rs. 17,500. It was the case of the complainant before the State Commission that since the truck had fallen on the houses of three people, when getting the truck out from there, they had to pay Rs. 17,500 to these three people. We are afraid that this will not amount to a consumer dispute as this will fall within the jurisdiction of the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal hence State Commission erred in allowing this part of the claim.

SECOND part in question relates to Rs. 18,697 being the cost of repairs. As pleaded by the learned Counsel for the appellant, at least 40% deduction should have been imposed on this value of the parts. Similar is the case with regard to the cost of ''body'' of the truck valued at Rs. 68,550 by the complainant in his affidavit filed before the State Commission. The principle of indemnity envisages placing the insured at status-quo ante only. If the new parts and new body are provided, thus the ''policy conditions'' as also the ''principle of indemnity'' envisages certain deduction. Even though the surveyor in his report has assessed depreciation @ 50% but before the State Commission, ''agreed-to'' limit of depreciation was to the extent of 40%, which in our view the State Commission has not done. In view of above, after deducting 40% of depreciation in respect of these two latter items, the respondent/complainant shall be entitled to Rs. 98,281 [rs. 15,302 + Rs. 11,218 (instead of Rs. 18,697. 50) + Rs. 71761 after providing for 40% of depreciation in the valuation of the Body of the truck (instead of Rs. 99,181]. In the light of above, the appellant is directed to pay Rs. 98,281 along with interest @ 18% along with cost of Rs. 3,000 after adjusting the amount, if any, already paid by the appellant to the complainant. The appeal stands allowed and disposed of in above terms. Appeal allowed.