VIDYUT URJA vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

BY way of this complaint the Complainant prays for following reliefs : "(a) To pay to the complainant Rs. 4,80,000 being the residual amount towards the claim of the complainant together with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of application till the date of actual payment. (b) To pay Rs. 25,000 to the complainant towards the mental tension, harassment and inconvenience caused. (c) To pay Rs. 1,00,000 to the complainant towards the expenses for hiring of taxi. (d) To pay Rs. 5,000 to the complainant towards the cost of this complaint."

THE complainant has alleged that his Daewood Cielo car, as per the particulars set out in the complaint, was insured with the opponent Insurance Company from 29.9.1997 to 28.9.1998 during which period it met with accident on 7.5.1998 at National Highway No. 8 near Bareja resulting into almost total loss of the vehicle. Opponent Insurance Company was informed about the same by letter dated 8.5.1998. Complainant also lodged claim for Rs. 7,79,171 along with estimate given by M/s.Crown Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. for repairs of the car in question. Mr. Bhupendrabhai of M/s. A.S. Rathod & Co. was appointed as Surveyor by the opponent Insurance Company. He offered Rs. 1,80,000 by way of total loss. Complainant has alleged that the car was heavily damaged and hence the complainant was entitled to Rs. 4,80,000. As the opponent Insurance Company did not pay the claimed amount the present complaint was filed after sending notice/correspondence as stated in the complaint. Opponent Insurance Company has resisted the complaint as per written statement dated 27.1.2000. The same is received as Exhibit-6A. With regard to the allegations made in the complaint it has been asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent Insurance Company since the loss was assessed as per the Surveyor''s report and discharge voucher was sent to the complainant who did not return the same duly signed. Complaint is, therefore, sought to be dismissed with cost.

Complainant has filed affidavit in rejoinder at Exhibit-8. Surveyor has filed affidavit at Exhibit-15. He was cross-examined by the learned Advocate of the complainant. He has stated that he is appointed by A.S. Rathod & Co. He has also stated that he had not made any suggestions with regard to the total loss in the survey report. His survey report appears with list Exhibit-3.

WE have gone through the pleadings of the parties and the material placed on the record. WE have also gone through the survey report. In our considered opinion since the Surveyor has not given particulars with regard to market value of the vehicle in question and has assessed it to be Rs. 2,00,000 it would be just and proper to rely upon the decision of the Hon''ble National Commission in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Anil Lamba, reported in I (2003) CPJ 229 (NC), where Hon''ble National Commission has set out formula for working out depreciation so as to find out reasonable market value of the vehicle on the date of accident. Accordingly, if insured value is in the sum of Rs.4,80,000, it comes to Rs. 72,000 calculating depreciation at the rate of 15% and if this amount is deducted it would give out a figure of Rs. 4,08,000. Surveyor is justified in deducting excess amount of Rs. 10,000. It would, thus, give out a figure of Rs. 3,98,000. Surveyor has assessed salvage value at Rs. 40,000. Salvage is with the complainant through its representative. Therefore, this amount will have to be deducted from Rs. 3,98,000. It gives out a figure of 3,58,000.

IN our considered opinion the complainant would not be entitled to any further compensation as also cost of the complaint in view of the fact that when the opponent offered the amount as per the Surveyor''s report there were no mala fides on its part. We, therefore, pass following order : Opponent INsurance Company is directed to pay Rs. 3,58,000 to the complainant with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the complaint till payment, within eight weeks from today. There shall be no order as to cost. Complaint disposed of