VISHNU RICE And PULSE MILLS vs NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD

- THE complainant has claimed the amount of Rs. 1,05,102.30/- which include Rs. 52,500/- for cash loss of the Maruti car, Rs. 22,602.30/- for the interest from 4.10.89 to 24.2.92 @18% and Rs. 30,000/- for pain, suffering, business loss etc.

THE Maruti car, belonging to the complainant, of 1989 model was insured by the opponent. THE car met with an accident on October 4, 1989 near Abu Road and the opponent was informed about the accident on 5.10.89. Inspite of that the opponent has neither repudiated the claim nor settled the same. THE complainant inter-alia contended in the complaint that initially the opponent had appointed Shri Kirtibhai Patel as the surveyor and subsequently surveyor Shri Kishan Mehta and the claim Engineer Shri Bapat had again inspected the damaged Maruti car. According to the complainant, Shri Kishan Mehta had informed that the opponent was to consider the vehicle as total loss but the opponent did not take any further action and the complainant subsequently came to know that the opponent had not treated the car as total loss but had assessed the damage at Rs. 52,500/- as cash loss and the salvage was to be handed over to the complainant. THE complainant was not agreeable to cash loss. However, with a view to settle the claim speedily he accepted. THE complainant was informed that the cash loss would be paid within 2 months and the complainant should get the car repaired but the complainant could not get it repaired and ultimately sold away the car in the same condition to Iqbal husein I. Tadha. THE complainant informed the opponent about this by letter dated 27.7.91 and subsequently reminded that the opponent did not settle the claim and, therefore, the complainant has claimed the above amount. The opponent by the reply (Exh. 12) admitted that initially on receiving the intimation regarding the claim the opponent had appointed Shri K.C. Patel as surveyor but Shri Patel was not convenient and agreeable to the complainant and, therefore, Shri Kishan Mehta was appointed as surveyor and the said surveyor had given the picture that cash loss was Rs. 52,500/-. The complainant had in connivance with the said surveyor and one Mr. Iqbal Tadha had tried to show as if the loss was Rs. 52,500/-. The opponent had entrusted the case to Central Bureau of Investigation through its Vigilance Dept. and the investigation is pending. The opponent also contended that because of this case and similar other cases the survey work was stopped being entrusted to Shri K.P. Mehta and various litigations are filed by Shri Mehta against the Insurance Company and the matter is already pending in the High Court. On 26.2.1990 the Insurance Company had specifically directed the complainant not to carry out the repairs so that fresh survey by a not her surveyor could be made. However, the complainant made it impossible as Mr. Iqbal Tadha had purchased the vehicle. It is alleged that the complainant carried out the repairs with ulterior motives to prevent the fresh survey being conducted. It is also stated M/s Gujarat Automobiles is closely connected with the consultancy of Iqbal Tadha and is specialist in repair of Tata Trucks and had no knowledge about Maruti Car had given quotation. According to the opponent the fraud is required to be investigated. The other contentions about jurisdiction etc. are also raised.

The fact that the car met with the accident near Abu Road on 4.10.89 and that the car was insured is not denied. It is also not denied that two surveyors were appointed and Shri Mehta had assessed the cash loss at Rs.52,500/- Shri Mehta was appointed surveyor by the opponent and, therefore, the cash loss assessed by Shri Mehta should be binding on the opponent. If at all the opponent had any doubt about the assessment by their own surveyor Shri Mehta, they could have immediately appointed another surveyor who could have assessed the loss. Inspite of the fact that the accident occurred on 4.10.89, the opponent did not take any such action and ultimately wrote letter on 26.2.90 directing the complainant not to carry out the repairs. As two surveyors had already inspected the car and Shri Mehta had already given the assessment report, the complainant could not have been compelled not to carry out the repairs even after the period of 4 months. The assessment made by Shri Mehta is binding on the opponent and, therefore, the cash loss of Rs.52,500/- should be accepted. According to the complainant, the car was driven from Abu to Ambaji and on way a buffalow suddenly came on the way and the accident occurred and the car fell in a ditch on the side of the road and was damaged.

SHRI A.P. Mehd, the learned advocate for the opponent Insurance Company contended that the complainant did not submit the license of the person driving the vehicle inspite of calling upon to send the driving license of SHRI A.M. Joshi for favour of verification, by letter dated 26.2.90. It is stated in the claim form that at the relevant time, SHRI A.M. Joshi having driving license No. 188695/AR was driving the vehicle. The learned advocate for the complainant states that SHRI Joshi is the partner of the Partnership firm. As the license number was already mentioned in the claim form, the opponent could have conveniently ascertained from the R.T.O. records as to whether SHRI Joshi was holding such license. Apart from that, merely because the license was not sent, it cannot be said that the breach of the conditions of the policy was committed. Mr. Mehd, the learned advocate for the opponent submits that under the terms and conditions of the policy, it is necessary that the driver should hold valid license. It is true that the policy contains such terms and conditions but it is also clear that the license number of the person driving the vehicle was already stated in the claim form which could have been ascertained by the opponent from the R.T.O. records, if at all they wanted to repudiate the claim on the ground that SHRI Joshi was not holding valid license. The complainant has produced the license of SHRI Joshi on the record. In view of that the contention of SHRI Mehd deserved to be rejected. The opponent Insurance Company, therefore, should have settled the claim at the earliest. Merely because the Insurance Company had some grievance against their own surveyor Shri Mehta and some litigation is there between the Insurance Company and Shri Mehta, that by itself does not justify not settling the claim of the complainant. The opponent, therefore, should pay Rs. 52,500/- as cash loss to the vehicle covered by insurance, to the complainant.

AS the claim is not settled by the opponent which they should have settled within the period of about three months, the complainant should be awarded interest from 1/1/1990 to 24/2/1992 as claimed by the complainant. The complainant has claimed interest @18% but should be awarded 12% i.e. normal bank rate. The interest at the rate of 12% on principal amount of Rs. 52,500.00 from 1/1/1990 to 24/2/1992 is Rs. 13,545.00. The complainant should also be awarded the interest at the same rate from 25/2/1992 till realisation. The interest is awarded by way of damage as the claim is not settled by the opponent within reasonable time. The complainant has claimed Rs.30,000 for pain, suffering, loss of business etc. but we do not think that any such compensation can be awarded, as it is not established that by not settling the claim the complainant suffered any pain or loss of business. It is clear that the complainant has sold the vehicle within short time after the accident. We, therefore, pass the following order. ORDER The opponent shall pay Rs. 66,045.00 with 12% interest from 25/2/1992 to the date of realisation on the principal amount of Rs. 52,500.00 within one month from the date of the receipt of the order. The parties shall bear their own cost of this complaint. Complaint allowed.