Back
UTTRANCHAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DEHRADUN
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi,
President & Ms. Luxmi Singh, Member
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.—Appellant
versus
SWARNLATA—Respondent
Appeal No. 148 of 2004—Decided on 7.6.2004
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Ms. Archana Bhatia, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. S.K. Gupta, Advocate.
The entitlement of the complainant to interest and determination of expenses incurred in the transfer of the vehicle were central legal points established in the judgment.
Headnote:
Insurance - Claim Dispute - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - The court discussed the entitlement of the complainant to the insured amount, interest, garage charges, expenses in the transfer of the vehicle, and cost of litigation. The court also considered the delay in claim settlement and the deficiency in service of the Insurance Company. The key legal provisions included the entitlement of the complainant to interest and the determination of expenses incurred in the transfer of the vehicle.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's vehicle was insured and met with an accident during the insurance period. The Insurance Company delayed the settlement of the claim, leading to a dispute over the payment of interest, garage charges, expenses in the transfer of the vehicle, and cost of litigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant was entitled to interest, garage charges, and reduced expenses of transfer. The delay in claim settlement and deficiency in service of the Insurance Company were considered in the court's analysis.
Issues: Dispute over payment of interest, garage charges, expenses in the transfer of the vehicle, and cost of litigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the complainant was entitled to interest and reduced expenses of transfer due to the delay in claim settlement and deficiency in service of the Insurance Company.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed and partly dismissed. The order for payment of transfer expenses was reduced, and the rest of the order passed by the learned Forum was confirmed.
Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, President—This is an appeal against the order dated 20.6.2000 passed by the District Forum, Hardwar whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed and the appellant, United Insurance Co. Ltd. was directed to pay interest @ 15% on the amount of Rs. 84,000/- (Rupees eighty-four thousand) to the complainant from 1.9.1998 to 19.1.2000 and also to pay a sum of Rs. 5,140/- (Rupees five thousand one hundred forty) as garage charges and Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees four thousand) as expenses in the transfer of the vehicle and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) as cost of litigation.
2. We are not to enter into actual dispute because on facts the case has been decided and there is no objection of the Insurance Company regarding the payment of Rs. 84,000/- (Rupees eighty-four thousand) but the objection is only in respect of interest, garage charges of Rs. 5,140/- (Rupees five thousand one hundred forty), expenses of Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees four thousand) in the transfer of the vehicle and payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand).
3. To decide this fact, it is to be seen that the Maruti car of the complainant was insured for a sum of Rs. 1,03,000/- (Rupees one lac three thousand). During the insurance period, it met with an accident on 31.5.1998, in which owner of the vehicle Rajkumar Singh died on the spot. Claim was lodged before the Insurance Company. Surveyor Sh. Bhupendra Singh was appointed. Again Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal was appointed as Surveyor. According to the Surveyor since the vehicle had met with an accident during the insurance period the complainant was entitled to total insured amount. The vehicle was got released on 22.7.1998 for transferring it in the name of the opposite party. It is alleged that the complainant is entitled to get the entire insured amount and a sum of Rs. 1,300/- incurred in bringing the vehicle from Muzaffarnagar to Hardwar, Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation.
4. In the affidavit of Sh. Rajkumar Arora, Branch Manager dated 23.2.2000, the opposite party alleged that the complainant did not bring the vehicle to the office of the Insurance Company, therefore, the Insurance Company has not to pay Rs. 5,140/- (Rupees five thousand one hundred forty) as rent charges. There is no mistake of the Insurance Company when the complainant was asked to deposit his vehicle. He deposited it on 26.11.1999. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to recover Rs. 5,140/- (Rupees five thousand one hundred forty). In this affidavit it is only alleged that making the transfer in the name of the company was obligatory on the part of the complainant and this was done in compliance of the order of the learned Forum dated 20.10.1999, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to the expenses of transfer amounting to Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees four thousand).
5. It appears that during the proceedings before the learned Forum, the appellant has offered Rs. 84,000/- (Rupees eighty-four thousand) to the complainant. The learned Forum also held that this amount be paid and the vehicle be transferred in favour of the Insurance Company. From the judgment, it is clear that the vehicle was transferred in favour of the company on 28.12.1999 and the payment was made. However, the matter was left upon to be contested and on contesting, it was found that complainant is entitled to interest @ 15% from 1.9.1998 to 19.1.2000, on which date the cheque was given to the complainant. In this appeal, it was alleged that from where the date of 1.9.1998 was found. From the records, it comes out that the accident took place on 31.5.1998, the claim should have been settled within 3 months by 31.8.1998, it is, therefore, the learned Forum which awarded interest from 1.9.1998, which is perfectly justified.
6. Contest was made on the rate of interest. In this case no compensation has been separately given to the complainant and the rate of interest of 15% cannot be said to be on the higher side.
7.
