Back
UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUCKNOW
Hon‘ble Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava, President &
Mr. D.D. Bahuguna, Member
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED—Appellant
versus
RAJESH TRIPATHI—Respondent
Case No. 2354 of 1993—Decided on 8.3.1999
The Consumer Protection Act provides an additional remedy to consumers and does not exclude other remedies available under law, including arbitration.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - INSURANCE - MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE - CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT FORUM - ARBITRATION CLAUSE - QUANTUM OF DAMAGES - INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, National Insurance Company, challenged the order of the District Consumer Forum, Lakhimpur, which directed the appellant to pay Rs. 46,312/- to the respondent, the owner of a vehicle insured with the appellant, as additional damages for repairs to the vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the District Forum had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, despite the existence of an arbitration clause in the insurance policy, as the Consumer Protection Act provides an additional remedy to consumers and does not exclude other remedies available under law.
Issues: 1. Whether the District Forum had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in light of the arbitration clause in the insurance policy? 2. Whether the respondent was entitled to additional damages beyond the amount assessed by the appellant's Surveyor? 3. Whether interest could be awarded for delayed payment of the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Consumer Protection Act provides an additional remedy to consumers and does not exclude other remedies available under law, including arbitration. 2. The respondent was entitled to additional damages as the appellant's Surveyor had failed to properly assess the damages to the vehicle and had deducted depreciation on the sales tax amount and metal parts, which was not justified. 3. Interest could be awarded for delayed payment of the claim as the appellant had not settled the claim reasonably and for the amount that should have been allowed to the respondent.
Final Decision: The court upheld the order of the District Forum and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 46,312/- to the respondent, along with interest at the rate granted by the District Forum.
Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava, President— This is an appeal against the order and judgment dated 10.11.1993 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Lakhimpur in Complaint No. 38/1991. The facts of the case, stated in brief, are that vehicle No. UP-31 9057 was insured with the National Insurance Company — opposite party, for Rs. 1,31,000/-. This Ambassador Car met with an accident, on 22nd of January 1990 at about 9 p.m. The information about the accident was conveyed to the Insurance Company on 25th January, 1990. Before that, on the date of accident, First Information Report was also lodged. The Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor who visited the spot on 25.1.1990. Thereafter second Surveyor’ for assessment of damages was appointed on 21.2.1990 who inspected the vehicle and submitted his report on 10th April, 1990. He recommended a claim of Rs. 53,675/- only which amount was paid accordingly by the Insurance Company. Now the claimant has said that in presence of one Farid Ahmed, who was owner of Dilli Motor Garage, Krishna Kumar and Others, the agent had settled the claim for Rs. 70,000/-. It is further mentioned that it was also agreed upon that in case engine and gear box of this vehicle was found defective, then a supplementary report may also be submitted and the balance is to be paid to the complainant. According to complainant he consented to this amount, but when the Surveyor submitted his report only claim of Rs. 53,675/- was forwarded. This amount is inadequate and the complainant had filed objections to the effect that Surveyor should be sent again and a supplementary report should be called for. The Surveyor was not again sent and hence complainant got the vehicle repaired and the information of this was conveyed to the Insurance Company on 6.3.1991. The list of damaged parts is given in Annexure-II to the complaint which were replaced.
2. It is further alleged that depreciation at the rate of 10% has been deducted as the vehicle met with an accident within six months of its purchase and no deduction on account of depreciation is to be made. The amount has not been paid and a further claim of Rs. 46,312/- in addition to the assessment made by the Surveyor has been claimed.
3. The opposite party, Insurance Company, has in its written statement, alleged that the vehicle was got immediately inspected on the spot after information of the accident was received, Thereafter, the final survey was got done. The Surveyor reported a loss of Rs. 53,657/- which was allowed by the Insurance Company. It is alleged that the Surveyor never offered settlement of Rs. 70,000/- as alleged by the claimant. According to the Insurance Company the cheque was sent but it was not accepted by the complainant.
4. A further plea was taken by the Insurance Company that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to settle the matter because the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act has already been lodged at Shahjahanpur. Both the claims cannot go together as judgments could contradict each other.
5. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant when once a claim has been lodged by the claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the complaint is not maintainable. This argument cannot be accepted. The learned District Forum has also decided this question by order dated 1.5.1993 and has come to the conclusion that this claim is not barred on account of lodging of previous claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. It maybe mentioned that under the Motor Vehicles Act, decision is taken about the compensation and damages which has to be given on account of injury caused to the persons who are involved in the accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot go into this question about the damages to the vehicle where the claim can be confined to Rs. 2,000/-. The rest of the amount has to be claimed before the normal Courts. Therefore, the order of learned District Forum on the question of jurisdiction is perfectly correct and needs no in
