PREM PRAKASH AGARWAL vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

FEELING aggrieved by the order allowing the appeal of the opposite party-Insurer by the State Commission by setting aside the order of the District Forum. The District Forum directed the opposite party, the Insurance Company to pay additional sum of Rs. 65,000 with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of theft of the car till 16th March, 2001 with compensation of Rs. 2,000 and cost of Rs. 2,000 in addition to Rs. 1,40,000 which had already been paid.

FACTS in brief are that a Maruti car No. UP-53F-6885 was insured with the respondent during the period 26.5.1999 to 25.5.2000 for a sum of Rs. 2,05,000. The vehicle was stolen away in the intervening night of 13-14.11.1999. After the theft, the Insurance Company got the matter investigated. Sh. Avinash Chandra, Surveyor recommended payment of Rs. 1,40,000 and accordingly the payment was made. The complainant had transferred the vehicle on 5.3.2001 in the name of the Insurance Company and executed a letter of subrogation. Thus, it is evident that payment was received on 16th March, 2001. Complaint was filed on 4th July, 2001. It is not explained at all as to in what circumstances no protest was made while receiving the amount of Rs. 1,40,000 and transferring the ownership rights and executing letter of subrogation though the complainant happened to be an Advocate. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment in the case of United India Insurance Co. v. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills & Ors., II (1999) CPJ 10 (SC)=VI (1999) SLT 590, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has made the following observations : "4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is true that the award of interest is not specifically authorised under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called ''the Act'') but in view of our judgment in Sovintorg (India) Ltd. v. State Bank of India, Civil Appeal No. 823 of 1992, decided on 11th August, 1999, we are of the opinion that in appropriate cases the Forums and the Commissions under the Act are authorised to grant reasonable interest under the facts and circumstances of each case. The mere execution of the discharge voucher would not always deprive the Consumer from preferring claim with respect of the deficiency in service or consequential benefits arising out of the amount paid in default of the service rendered. Despite execution of the discharge voucher, the Consumer may be in a position to satisfy the Tribunal or the Commission under the Act that such discharge voucher or receipt had been obtained from him under the circumstances which can be termed as fraudulent or exercise of undue influence or by misrepresentation or the like. If in a given case the consumer satisfies the authority under the Act that the discharge voucher was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, under influence or the like, coercive bargaining compelled by circumstances, the authority before whom the complaint is made would be justified in granting appropriate relief. However, where such discharge voucher is proved to have been obtained under any of the suspicious circumstances noted hereinabove, the Tribunal or the Commission would be justified in granting the appropriate relief under the circumstances of each case. The mere execution of the discharge voucher and acceptance of the insurance claim would not estopple insured from making further claim from the insurer but only under the circumstances as noticed earlier. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums and Commissions constituted under the Act shall also have the power to fasten liability against the Insurance Companies notwithstanding the insurance of the discharge voucher. Such a claim cannot be termed to be fastening the liability against the Insurance Companies over and above the liabilities payable under the contract of insurance envisaged in the policy of insurance. The claim preferred regarding the deficiency of service shall be deemed to be based upon the insurance policy, being covered by the provisions of Section 14 of the Act.

In the instant cases the discharge vouchers were admitted executed voluntarily and the complainants had not alleged their execution under fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation or the like. In the absence of pleadings and evidence the State Commission was justified in dismissing their complaints. The National Commission however granted relief solely on the ground of delay in the settlement of claim under the policies. The mere delay of a couple of months would not have authorised the National Commission to grant relief particularly when the insurer had not complaint of such a delay at the time of acceptance of the insurance amount under the policy. We are not satisfied with the reasoning of the National Commission and are of the view that the State Commission was justified in dismissing the complaints though on different reasonings. The observations of the State Com-mission in Jivajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., O.P. No. 52 of 1991 decided on November 28, 1991 shall always be construed in the light of our findings in this judgment and the mere receipt of the amount without any protest would not always debar the claimant from filing the complaint."

(Emphasis supplied)

It may be mentioned that the vehicle was registered for the first time on 19.4.1997. It is a well known that the market value goes down after purchase by 20 to 25% in the first year itself leaving aside the use, maintenance and milage covered till the date of theft. Since the Surveyor recommended the payment of Rs. 1,40,000, in absence of anything contrary to the Surveyor''s report about the market value at the time of theft, the simple assertion of the complainant would not be sufficient to say that its value was Rs. 2,05,000. It is evident from the judgment cited above that the judgment instead of supporting goes against him. In absence of any pleadings about mis-representation or any undue inference, or fraud etc., it could not be said that order suffered from any irregularity or illegality. Besides, one could not be oblivious to the fact that the payment has been received by executing the documents by transferring the ownership to the Insurance Company. The insured had executed a letter of subrogation also. In these circumstances, after accepting Rs. 1,43,000 the complainant could not take about turn and file a complaint for enhancement of compensation.

FOR the aforesaid reasons, there is no force in this revision. It is dismissed accordingly. Revision Petition dismissed.