SITABEN PRAVINBHAI PATEL vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

THE complainant has claimed the amount of Rs. 2,35,000/- which include Rs. 1,00,000/- for I.E. Value of the diesel Ambassador car stolen and Rs. 45,000/- for the expenses required be incurred @ Rs. 200/- every day for business loss, Rs. 25,000/- for mental torture, Rs. 25,000/- for special damages for unfair trade practice adopted by the Insurance Company, Rs. 15,000/- exemplary damaged and Rs. 25,000 /- for interest. THE complainant No.1 Sitaben Pravinbhai Patel is sole proprietor of Bhagwati Auto Enterprise and the complainant No. 2 Pravinbhai Pirabhai Patel, husband of Sitaben, is managing the affairs of the said enterprise and the car was maintained for the purpose of business. When the car was purchased it was having petrol engine but in 1989 the diesel engine was fixed at the cost of Rs. 60,000/- and, therefore, the value for the purpose of insurance was considered Rs. 1,00,000/- . THE insurance coverage was for the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- . THE car was stolen on 2.5.91 and the complaint was lodged before the police and the opposite party Insurance Company was informed immediately after the theft. According to the complainant inspite of the insurance coverage, the opposite party did not settle the claim and, therefore, the complainant is obliged to approach this Commission.

THE opposite party by reply (Exh. 9) admitted the insurance coverage and the estimated value of the car at Rs. 1,00,000 / but according to them it was 1977 model and purchased for Rs. 60,000/- in the year 1984. THE valuer who was appointed by the opposite party has assessed the market value of the vehicle at Rs. 60,000/- and, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay more than that amount. There is no dispute that the car was stolen and the insurance coverage was in existence at the relevant time. According to the opposite party the insurance coverage continued from 1989 and it was renewed. Shri D.B. Shah, the learned advocate for the opposite party vehemently urged that the value of the car should not be considered at more than Rs. 60,000/- and the other claims by the complainant are not admissible. Shri Shah also asserted that the Insurance Company had not repudiated the policy and had not informed the complainant that the claim will not be considered and inspite of that the complainant rushed to this Commission and filed the complaint and, therefore, no cause of action ever arose. Shri Shah also stated that the complainant has not filed the rejoinder to the contentions and, therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. The liability for the interest is also challenged by Shri Shah.

Admittedly, the vehicle was 1977 model Ambassador car. The diesel engine was fixed in the year 1989. According to the complainant the cost was Rs. 60,000/- but the complainant has not produced reliable evidence to establish that the cost of fixing the engine was Rs. 60,000/- . The valuer appointed by the opposite party has fixed the value of the car at Rs. 60,000/- and, therefore, the opposite party cannot assert that value is less than Rs. 60,000/- . The complainant has failed to establish that the value of the car was more than Rs. 60,000/- . Considering the fact that the car was 1977 model and was used and the valuer has fixed the value of the car at Rs. 60,000/- , we accept the value of the car at Rs. 60,000/- . The complainant is entitled to the actual value of the vehicle. The amount of Rs. 60,000/- , therefore, should be awarded to the complainant for the value of the car.

THE incident occurred on 2.5.91 and inspite of the representations, the opposite party did not settle the claim. THE complainant, therefore, should be awarded interest from the date of the theft. THE complainant was using the vehicle for the purpose of business and, therefore, the complainant was required to incur expenses for the transport for want of the car. At least the complainant, therefore, should be awarded interest from the date of theft. It is true that in normal circumstances the reasonable time is excluded for counting the interest as the Insurance Company may take some time for finalising the settlement of the claim but in the instant case the Insurance Company never settled the claim and, therefore, also the interest should be awarded from the date of theft. THE interest should be awarded at bank rate i.e. 12% and the complainant should be awarded interest from 2.5.91 to June 21, 1993 which comes to Rs. 15,400/- . THE other claims of the complainant cannot be awarded as we do not consider any merits in such claims. It is submitted by Shri D.B. Shah that in case the car is found by the police in future, the car should be handed over to the Insurance Company as the price is paid by the Insurance Company. Shri Rajiv Mehta, the learned Counsel for the complainant agrees that if the car is found in future by the police, the R.T.O. Book and T.T.O. Form duly signed will be handed over by the complainant to the Insurance Company at their request.

WE, therefore, pass the following order. ORDER The opposite party shall pay Rs. 75,400/- with running interest of 12% from 21.6.93 till realisation. In case the car is found by the police, the complainant shall hand over the R.T.O. Book and T.T.O. Form duly signed to the Insurance Company within 10 days from the date of the request. The parties to bear their own cost of this complaint. Complaint allowed.