UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs Michael Viegas

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 15.11.2013 passed by Learned State Commission in FA No. 75 of 2013 - Mr. Michael Viegas Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.; by which while allowing appeal order of the District Forum allowing complaint partly was modified and compensation was enhanced.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant - respondent, owner of Toyota Innova No. GA -07 -C -1256 got it insured from opposite party/petitioner for a sum of Rs. 6.00 lakhs from 22/01/2010 to 21/01/2011 with limitation that vehicle could not be used for hire or reward. On 15/05/2010, vehicle met with an accident and passengers in the vehicle sustained injuries and vehicle was damaged. FIR was lodged at Tadas Police Station and intimation was given to opposite party. The opposite party appointed surveyor on 22/06/2010 who submitted its report on 26/08/2010 and assessed loss of Rs. 4.00 lakhs after deducting Rs. 2.00 lakhs as wreck value. Opposite party did not settle claim and later on obtained the report from K.B. Shellikeri, Investigator, on 15/03/2011 and again called report from M/s. Facts Finders who submitted that vehicle was used for hire and by letter dated 11/07/2011, opposite party repudiated claim as vehicle was used for commercial purpose. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint on the ground mentioned in repudiation letter and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint on non -standard basis and awarded Rs. 3.00 lakhs i.,e. 75% of Rs. 4.00 lakhs alongwith 9% p.a. interest and further awarded cost of Rs. 5,000/ -. Appeal filed by the complainant was allowed by Learned State Commission vide impugned order and opposite party was directed to pay Rs. 6.00 lakhs alongwith Rs. 50,000/ - as compensation and further allowed Rs. 10,000/ - as cost of appeal and upheld cost awarded by District Forum and increased rate of interest from 9% to 11% p.a. against which this revision petition has been filed.

HEARD Learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. Learned Counsel for Petitioner submitted that Learned State Commission while agreeing with the surveyor''s report committed error in enhancing compensation, hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for Respondent submitted that order passed by Learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence, revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of record reveals that IDV of the vehicle was Rs. 6.00 lakhs as per Policy. Surveyor by report dated 26/08/2010 assessed loss of Rs. 6.00 lakhs and after deducting Rs. 2.00 lakhs for wreck value assessed liability of Insurance Co. to the tune of Rs. 4.00 lakhs. Opposite party appointed another Investigator - Mr. K.B. Shellikeri, who has not given any report regarding damages to the vehicle but has only apprised that FIR under Section 279, 337, 338,304 (a) IPC has been registered. Opposite party again obtained the report from M/s. Fact Finders and Fact Finders by report dated 03/05/2011 apprised that vehicle was used for hire and passengers of the vehicle paid fare - Rs. 30,000/ -.

AS far surveyor''s report is concerned, he has nowhere observed in his report that vehicle was used for hire at the time of accident. Investigator - Mr. K.B. Shellikeri has also not observed in his report that vehicle was used for hire. M/s. Facts Finders vide report dated 03/05/2011 observed that passengers in the vehicle hired vehicle from insured - Mr. Michael Viegas. Later on, in para 4 of the report, it has been mentioned that passengers paid Rs. 30,000/ - to Mr. Antonio Araujo as rental charges of the car and he is not aware how much amount was paid by Mr. Antonio to Mr. Michael Viegas. In this report, it has also been mentioned that Ms. Socorin and Ms. Glermina apprised that vehicle was taken on hire.

APPARENTLY , this report itself is contradictory. If passengers of the vehicle had taken vehicle on hire from owner of the vehicle why would they make payment to Mr. Antonio. Learned Counsel for Petitioner could not draw my attention to any statement of Ms. Socorin and Ms. Glermina to substantiate the contention that vehicle was used for hire at the time of accident. In such circumstances, Learned State Commission rightly dis -believed the report of M/s. Fact Finders and in such circumstances, District Forum was not justified in awarding claim on sub -standard basis by reducing 25% from the amount assessed by surveyors.

LEARNED Counsel for Petitioner submitted that when Learned State Commission agreed to the surveyor''s report, there was no occasion for the State Commission to allow claim to the extent of Rs. 6.00 lakhs allowing wreck as the property of opposite party. I agree with the submission of Learned Counsel for Petitioner. Once Learned State Commission agreed with the surveyor''s report which was also accepted by District Forum, there was no occasion to allow wreck value of Rs. 2.00 lakhs to the complainant and liability of Insurance Co. should have been restricted only up to Rs. 4.00 lakhs as assessed by surveyor. Learned Counsel for Respondent has not placed any document to prove that wreck value assessed by the surveyor is improper or excessive. In such circumstances, complainant is entitled to claim Rs. 4.00 lakhs instead of Rs. 3.00 lakhs as awarded by the District Forum.

LEARNED State Commission has also allowed Rs. 50,000/ - as compensation and Rs. 10,000/ - as cost and has also increased rate of interest. As far compensation is concerned, I deem it appropriate to reduce it by 50% as claim allowed by State Commission is also being reduced. I do not find any illegality, irregularity in awarding cost of Rs. 10,000/ - of the appeal and in enhancing interest and to this extent revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENT LY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed and impugned order dated 15/11/2013 passed by Learned State Commission in FA No. 75 of 2013 - Mr. Michael Viegas Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.; is modified and compensation of Rs. 6.00 lakhs is substituted with Rs.4.00 lakhs and compensation of Rs. 50,000/ - for mental agony is reduced to Rs. 25,000/ - and rest of the order is upheld with this modification that wreck of the insured vehicle shall remain property of complainant, with no order as to costs.