United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs TRILOK SINGH RAWAT

IN this revision, challenge is to the order dated 13.3.2007 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttarakhand, Dehradun partly allowing appeal against the order dated 19.12.2005 of a District Forum and directing the petitioner to pay amount of Rs. 87,300 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 13.9.2000 as also cost, to the respondent.

ADMITTEDLY, a new Ashok Leyland Comet Tipper purchased after taking loan from State Bank of India, Lamgaon, was got insured by the respondent/complainant with the petitioner/opposite party for Rs. 7,30,000 on 20.7.1999. On the very first day of its use vehicle fell in deep gorge on 24.7.1999. Respondent immediately intimated the petitioner of this incident. Petitioner appointed Surveyor(s) and asked the respondent to retrieve the salvage which he did. Salvage was kept in the premises of M/s. Oberoi Motors and was later on sold for Rs. 2,75,000. Amount of Rs. 4,09,000 was paid by the petitioner to the State Bank of India, Lamgaon on 14.3.2000. Petitioner alleged that the respondent had settled the claim for Rs. 6,90,000 on total loss basis and payment of amount of Rs. 4,09,000 covered the respondent''s entire claim. On the contrary, the respondent pleaded that he had not voluntarily consented to settle the claim for Rs. 6,90,000 and as the vehicle was insured for Rs. 7,30,000 he is entitled to the difference in the amount besides amount of Rs. 45,000 spent on retrieving the salvage and garage charges of Rs. 13,000. Taking the market value of the truck as Rs. 7,30,000, retrieving expenses of Rs. 30,000 and garage charges of Rs. 11,300 the petitioner-Insurance Company was directed by the State Commission to pay further amount of Rs. 87,300 to the respondent.

Short submission advanced by Mr. S.M. Tripathi for the petitioner is that the finding returned by the State Commission of the respondent having been coerced to settle the claim for Rs. 6,90,000 is erroneous. Reliance has been placed on the decision in Pochampally Handloom House v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., I (2003) CPJ 63 (NC)=2004 CCJ 471. Submission is, however, without any merit. State Commission has taken note of the adverse financial circumstances under which the respondent was placed as a result of accident of the vehicle on the very first day of its use and his incurring liability of interest on the loan taken against hypothecation of the vehicle from the bank. It is not in dispute that salvage was retrieved by the respondent at the asking of petitioner-Insurance Company and salvage was put in the garage of M/s. Oberoi Motors, Dehradun for safe custody. Amount of Rs. 6,90,000 did not include retrieval expenses of Rs. 30,000 and garage charges of Rs. 11,300 which the State Commission has found payable by the petitioner-Insurance Company. To be only noted that the vechicle had not suffered any depreciation in value as the incident took place within four days of the taking of policy and amount of Rs. 4,09,000 was paid on 14.3.2000 after a delay of more than 7 months of the alleged settlement on 26.8.1999. In this backdrop, we do not find any fault in the conclusion reached by the State Commission that respondent had not voluntarily consented to the settlement on total loss basis of the vehicle for Rs. 6,90,000. Decision in Pochampally Handloom House''s case is distinguishable of facts. Revision petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed being without any merit. Dismissed as such. R.P. dismissed.