UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR vs RAMDAYAL CHOUDHARY

This Revision Petition by the United India Insurance Company Ltd. (for short "the Insurance Company") is directed against the order dated 11.08.2008 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Jaipur in Appeal No. 574 of 2007. By the impugned order the State Commission, while overturning the order dated 03.01.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ajmer in Complaint Case No. 151 of 2006, has allowed the Appeal and directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant a sum of 2,79,463.56 along-with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till payment along-with costs of litigation quantified at 10,000/-.

Briefly stated the material facts giving rise to the present Revision Petition are as follows:- The Complainant, an individual, had got his JCB machine insured with the Insurance Company for the assured sum of 16,50,000/-. The policy was valid for the period from 06.06.2005 to 05.06.2006. Unfortunately, on 16.07.2005 the machine met with an accident. Intimation regarding the accident was given to the Insurance Company immediately. On 17.07.2005 spot surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company, who submitted his report on 19.09.2005, wherein while stating that he was unable to inspect the machine on 17.07.2005 because of the incessant rain, he observed that the machine had suffered damage. The details of the damage caused to the machine was also mentioned in the survey report. According to the Complainant, since the machine had been purchased by him for earning his livelihood and he having failed to get any response from the Insurance Company for almost two months, he had no option but to get the machine repaired at the authorized service station of the manufacturer, namely, Rajesh Motors and incurred an expenditure of 4,36,575.56p. On getting the machine repaired he preferred the claim with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company vide its letter dated 16.06.2006 repudiated the claim on the ground that the Complainant had got the vehicle repaired without getting the final survey conducted.

Being aggrieved by the repudiation of his claim, the Petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum upon consideration of the material placed before it, dismissed the complaint, mainly on the ground that the Complainant had got the vehicle repaired without getting the vehicle inspected by the final surveyor despite the fact the Insurance Company had time and again asked him to inform them about the whereabouts of the vehicle. Being dissatisfied with the said order, the Complainant carried the matter in Appeal to the State Commission, in which the afore-noted relief has been granted. Hence the Revision Petition by the Insurance Company.

We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. In so far as the question as to whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in repudiating the claim on the afore-said ground is concerned, we are in complete agreement with the State Commission that there being a complete silence on the part of the Insurance Company for almost two months of his informing them about the accident, it was not possible for the Complainant to wait for an infinite time to get the nod of the Insurance Company for getting the machine surveyed and thereafter repaired. Further, the fact that the spot surveyor had also mentioned in his report that there was some apparent damage to it and the fact that the Complainant had got it repaired from an authorized workshop, there is no reason to doubt that the Complainant had not incurred the expenditure, as claimed in the complaint. As a matter of fact the State Commission has not awarded the expenses amounting to 60,584/- stated to have been incurred by the Complainant on repair of the engine, on the ground that the document placed on record was merely an invoice and not the actual bill for payment of the said amount. Be that as it may since the Complainant has not questioned the correctness of the said claim, we deem it unnecessary to deal with the said question. In that view of the matter, we affirm the finding relating to deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company. Nevertheless, having regard to the fact that the Insurance Company had deposited 50% of the amount as awarded by the State Commission in March, 2009 itself, and some breach of

the policy conditions had been noticed by the spot surveyor in his report, we are of the view that award of interest @ 9% p.a. to the Complainant on the aforesaid amount is on the higher side. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed to that extent and it is directed that the Insurance Company shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a. on the afore-said amount of 2,79,463.56p from the date of filing of the complaint till the actual realization, instead of 9% p.a. as directed by the State Commission. The rest of the directions in the impugned order are maintained.

The amount due to the Complainant in terms of this order shall be paid by the Insurance Company to the Complainant within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It will be open to the Insurance Company to withdraw the amount, stated to have been deposited by it in the State Commission on 20.03.2009 along with interest accrued, if any, on the said amount.

The Revision Petition stands disposed of accordingly in the above terms with orders as to costs.