United India Insurance Company Ltd vs SHWETA CHOUDHARY

THE above mentioned two appeals are being decided by this common judgment as both have been preferred against the order dated 25. 10. 2004 passed by the District Forum, Ajmer in Complaint Case No. 98/04. Appeal No. 2202/04:

THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company against the order dated 25. 10. 2004 passed by the District Forum, Ajmer in Complaint Case No. 98/04, by which the complaint of the respondent was allowed against the appellant in the manner that the appellant Insurance Company would pay a sum of Rs. 3,05,000 to the complainant respondent No. 1 on net loss basis within two months and further the respondent No. 1 would deposit salvage within two months and in case the salvage was not deposited by the complainant respondent No. 1, the appellant Insurance Company would pay a sum of Rs. 2,60,000 with interest @ 9% p. a. , etc. , etc. It arises in the following circumstances: that the complainant respondent No. 1 had filed a complaint against the appellant Insurance Company and respondent No. 2 before the District Forum, Ajmer on 26. 3. 2004 inter alia stating that her Indica car bearing registration No. DL. 4. C. P. 3351 was got insured with the appellant Insurance Company for the period 20. 2. 2002 to 19. 2. 2003 for a sum of Rs. 3,58,083. It was further stated in the complaint that the said car had met with an accident at Delhi and that accident had caused with the truck of respondent No. 2 bearing No. RJ 14, G7177 and report of that accident was lodged against the driver of the truck with the Police Station Basant Kunj. It was further stated in the complaint that in that accident, her husband as well as brother-in-law both had died and information of that incident was also given by the complainant respondent No. 1 to the office of the appellant Insurance Company. It was further stated in the complaint that a spot survey was done and all the relevant papers were submitted by the complainant respondent No. 1 to the office of the appellant but the appellant Insurance Company through letter dated 15. 3. 2004 had repudiated the claim of the complainant respondent No. 1 inter alia holding that since at the time of accident, the driver of the insured vehicle was not having any licence and thereafter the present complaint was filed.

A reply was filed by the appellant Insurance Company before the District Forum and in the reply they have taken the same pleas which they have taken in the repudiation letter dated 15. 3. 2004 and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

THE District Forum after hearing both the parties through the impugned order had allowed the complaint as stated above inter alia holding that since the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck of respondent No. 2 , therefore, the issue of licence so far as the deceased driver of the car was concerned that issue had become redundant one and since placing reliance on the survey report, the impugned order was passed. Aggrieved from that order, this appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company and in this appeal, the main argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that since the driver of the insured vehicle was not having any licence, therefore, claim was rightly repudiated and findings recorded by the District Forum are erroneous one and be quashed and appeal be allowed.

ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 has supported the impugned order. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 1. In our considered opinion, when two persons sitting in the car had died on the spot and accident was caused by respondent No. 2, the driver of the truck, in such a case asking the licence of the driver of the car was nothing but arbitrary exercise on the part of the appellant Insurance Company and thus so far as the merits of the case is concerned, appeal deserves to be dismissed and we are in agreement with the findings recorded by the District Forum. On point of compensation:

ON file, there is a survey report dated 8. 3. 2003 prepared by the Surveyor, Shri O. P. Maheshwari in which the Surveyor had assessed the loss as net loss as follows: "loss assessed on net loss basis insurance cover 3,58,083

Show Room rate in Oct. 2002 (accident date)3,50,000

Fair market value of 8 months old 30,500

Wreck value 4,500

Loss assessed on net loss basis 2,60,000

Conclusions: since loss payable on net loss basis is Rs. 2,60,000 and which is about Rs. 48,000 less than on repair loss basis i. e. , Rs. 3,08,000. It is, therefore, recommended that loss may be settled on net loss basis. "

SINCE the District Forum had decreed the claim as per the report of the Surveyor, therefore, we see no reason to defer with the findings recorded by the District Forum even on point of compensation also specifically when a sum of Rs. 2. 60 lacs had already been paid by the appellant to the complainant respondent No. 1 and thus the compliance in one sense had been made by the appellant Insurance Company. Now the question of salvage remains and as per the statement given by the Counsel for respondent No. 1, the salvage is lying with the complainant respondent No. 1 and the District Forum had clearly observed in its impugned order that if the salvage would remain with complainant respondent No. 1, the appellant Insurance Company would pay a sum of Rs. 2. 60 lac and thus so far as this appeal is concerned that has to be dismissed. Appeal No. 2204/2004:

So far as this appeal is concerned, we are of the view that the complainant appellant would not claim a sum of Rs. 3,05,000 without surrendering the salvage value and since in this case the salvage in still in the possession of the complainant appellant, therefore, the prayer of the complainant appellant that claim be decreed for a sum of Rs. 3,05,000 and he be not asked to surrender the salvage, could not be accepted.

FOR reasons as stated above, this appeal filed by the appellant complainant also deserves to be dismissed. The result is that both the above-mentioned appeals are dismissed. Appeals dismissed.