ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD vs Saji P John

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 27.1.2004 in Complaint No. 220/2001 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called the District Forum for short) directing the appellant/insurer to pay to the complainant/respondent compensation of Rs. 73,577/ - with interest @ 6% per annum from 5.7.2001. It was further directed that if the amount is not deposited within 2 months, interest would be payable @ 12% per annum. Compensation of Rs. 7,000/ - and cost of Rs. 2,000/ - was also awarded.

THE complainant alleged that he had purchased a truck No. MP -24 -C -1473 from Pithora Singh. It was also alleged that the previous owner Pithora Singh had comprehensively insured the truck with the appellant/insurer covering the risk thereof from 18.2.2000 to 17.2.2001. It was further averred that the name of the complainant/respondent was also recorded in the registration certificate by the Competent Authority on 5.8.2000. It was further alleged that on 10.10.2000, while the truck was going towards Dalli Rajhara, met with an accident. The Surveyor was appointed by the appellant. Surveyor assessed the loss to the extent of Rs. 73,577/ -. However, the complainants claim was repudiated by the appellant on the ground that intimation was not given by the complainant/respondent to the appellant/insurer regarding the purchase of the truck from the previous owner. Hence the complaint before the District Forum. The complaint was resisted by the appellant/insurer. The averments in substance were that the truck was not insured by the complainant/respondent and that, since the complainant had not intimated about the purchase of truck from its previous owner Pithora Singh, he was not entitled to any benefit under the policy. It was, therefore, averred that repudiation of the complainants claim did not amount to deficiency in service.

THE District Forum, however, held that even though the policy was obtained by the previous owner, yet the complainant was entitled to benefit thereunder. Accordingly, the complaint was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay compensation as mentioned above.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant/insurer mainly urged that after the purchase of the vehicle, the complainant/respondent ought to have notified the transfer to the appellant/insurer. He, having failed to do so, was not entitled to benefit under the policy. It was also urged that as interest was already awarded on the amount of compensation, further compensation of Rs. 7,000/ -, as awarded by the District Forum, was not justified. It was also contented that as per the report of the Surveyor C.M. Sharma salvage value of the damaged vehicle was Rs. 2,000/ - which ought to have been deducted from the compensation awarded. It may be noticed that by circular dated 24.6.1997 it has been decided by the TAC (Tariff Advisory Committee) that the policies issued as per the revised Motor Tariff, own damage claims which fall under the purview of GR -10 provisions would be settled in full subject to the other terms and conditions of the policy. It was also decided by the TAC that the said instructions will supersede the instructions contained in their earlier circular dated 20.12.1995. It is, therefore, clear that the insurer was liable to pay compensation to the complainant/transferee as per GR -10 of the Indian Motor Tariff.

IN view of the above circular, it is clear that the claim of the complainant was to be allowed in full, as per GR -10, notwithstanding, that the complainant/respondent did not intimate the change of ownership to the appellant/insurer.

IT is clear that the Surveyor C.M. Sharma assessed the damage at Rs. 73,577/ - and assessed the salvage value at Rs. 2,000/ -, therefore, compensation to the extent of Rs. 71,577/ - rounded to Rs. 71,600/ - deserved to be awarded to complainant/respondent. Since the District Forum has awarded interest on the said amount payable from 5.7.2001, the award of additional compensation of Rs. 7,000/ - to the complainant does not appear to be justified and the appeal deserves to be allowed to the above extent. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order stands modified. It is directed that the appellant shall pay to the complainant/respondent Rs. 71,600/ - with interest at the rate and from the date as directed by the District Forum. However, the award of the District Forum directing the appellant to pay to the complainant additional compensation of Rs. 7,000/ - is set aside. Appeal partly allowed.