New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Sunil Kumar Gupta

THIS revision petition arises out of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh, whereby the State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum. The brief facts that lead the complainant to approach the District Forum are as under : The complainant had purchased a Maruti Van, after taking loan from the opposite party No. 3, Punjab and Sind Bank and got it insured with the New India Assurance Company, the petitioner, for a sum of Rs. 1,98,000/-. The policy was effective from 18.9.1998 to 17.9.1999. The Van met with an accident on 7.4.1999 and the Insurance Company was informed with immediate effect. The Insurance Company deputed a Surveyor who surveyed the loss. Thereafter, the Insurance Company deputed another Surveyor. In spite of that, the claim was not settled, even though both the Surveryors recommended the case of the complainant for total loss. On August 17, 1999, the Insurance Company had offered to settle the claim in full and final settlement by making payment of Rs. 1,44,000/-, which the complainant did not agree to.

THEREAFTER, he filed a complaint before the District Forum. On notice being sent, the Insurance Company filed its reply. The reason given by the Insurance Company for reducing the amount to Rs. 1,44,000/- was that the complainant had driven the taxi for a period of six months after taking the insurance policy, when the accident took place. The District Forum observed that there is no evidence on record to the effect that the market value of the car at the time of occurrence of the accident was less than Rs. 1,98,000/-. The District Forum after having heard both the parties and going through the material placed on record directed the Insurance Company to pay the compplainant a sum of Rs. 1,99,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% w.e.f. 1.6.1999, i.e. one week after the report of the 1st Surveyor till payment is made with litigation expenses of Rs. 500/-. The Insurance Company, feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum went in appeal. The complainant also went in appeal for enhancement of the rate of interest to 14% as he had taken the loan from the Bank at 14%. Both the appeals were disposed of by the State Commission by a common order. The State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant, as it did not find any ground to award interest at the rate of 14% on the facts and circumstances of the case. As far as the appeal of the Insurance Company is concerned the State Commission held that there was no reason to appoint another Surveyor, that too, after more than a month of the 1st Surveyor''s report and thought it fit, according to us rightly, to place reliance on the 1st Surveryor''s report and upheld the order of the District Forum. Heard Mr. Joy Basu, learned Counsel fo the Insurance Company. We have also gone through impugned order and that of the District Forum. We find no infirmity or material irregularity or jurisdictional error which calls for our interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The impugned order is upheld. In the result, the Revision Petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.