United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs ARUN KUMAR PARASRAM PURIA

THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant company against the order of State Commission directing the appellant to pay Rs. 20,147/- alongwith interest @ 18% from 1.10.1989 and costs of Rs. 500/-.

THE facts necessary to appreciate the case are that the respondent''s car was insured with the appellant/respondent. It met with an accident on 31.3.1989 for which the respondent/claimant preferred a claim for Rs. 44,688/-. Surveyors were appointed. While the first claim was still in the process of being settled, the same car met with a second accident on 13.8.1989 - the car having been got repaired and brought in working condition earlier. For the second accident also a claim was preferred. Not getting any satisfactory settlement, the respondent/complainant moved the District Forum for giving direction to the appellant to pay Rs. 1,02,000/- comprising Rs. 44,688/- towards repairs on account of 1st accident. Rs. 5,620/- as cost of repairs caused by the 2nd accident plus interest @ 18% on damages and loss of business. Some time in September, 1992, the appellant issued a cheque to the respondent for Rs. 29,541/- as a full and final settlement of claim against the first accident without informing the reason for short settlement viz-a-viz the claim and the valuation assessed by the Surveyors. This was accepted under protest. THE State Commission after hearing both the parties directed payment of Rs. 20,147/- comprising Rs. 15,147/- (Rs. 44,688/- - Rs. 29,541/-) plus Rs. 5,000/- a round figure on account of repairs to the vehicle caused by the second accident, along with interest @ 18%. It is against this order that the appellant Company filed the appeal before us. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant Company that the State Commission erred in not either directing our claim to the salvage or to adjustment of the amount in the final claim. It was also argued by him that rate of interest awarded is on the high side. It should be 9% p.a. on the other hand, it was argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the State Commission''s order is correct and need no interference. The Insurance Company took three years in settling the claim and that too, in part which itself is a deficiency.

On perusal of material on record, we find that the respondent had preferred two separate claims for two separate accidents amounting to Rs. 44,688/- and Rs. 5,620/- respectively. State Commission in its order has met these claims in full. In these circumstances, we have no doubt in our mind that the Insurance Company is entitled to the salvage. We also realise it to order now for return of salvage after about almost 12 years of the accident, but presumption is that respondent would have collected it and done smelting with it. Normally the State Commission should have passed order on this point. We also see that interest awarded is on the higher side. Normally, we would have awarded interest @ 12% but keeping in view the facts of the case when we are not too sure about the status of salvage, in our view, ends of justice shall meet if instead of directing return of salvage, rate of interest is awarded at 10% p.a. Only to this extent, the order of the State Commission is modified. Appeal is allowed in part. No order on costs. Appeal partly allowed.