Back
JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SRINAGAR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Kawoosa, President &
Mrs. Jameela Bashir, Member
GHULAM QADIR WANI—Complainant
versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.—Opposite Parties
Complaint No. 89 of 1997—Decided on 13.8.2002
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. Manzoor Ahmed Dar, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties :Mr. N.H. Khuroo, Advocate.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is that indemnification for a lost vehicle should be based on the market value at the time of the accident, as assessed by a surveyor, and not necessarily the full sum insured.
Headnote:
Insurance - Vehicle Insurance - Indemnification based on market value - Summary: The court held that indemnification for a lost vehicle should be based on the market value at the time of the accident, as assessed by a surveyor. The complainant's insistence on the full sum insured was not acceptable, and the court directed the insurance company to indemnify the complainant with the assessed amount plus interest.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's vehicle was insured for Rs. 1,75,000 and was lost in an accident. The insurance company offered Rs. 1,00,000 as indemnification based on the market value assessed by a surveyor, but the complainant insisted on the full sum insured. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate indemnification amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurance company's offer of Rs. 1,00,000 as indemnification based on the market value assessed by a surveyor was reasonable. The complainant's insistence on the full sum insured was not acceptable, and the court directed the insurance company to indemnify the complainant with Rs. 1,00,000 plus 9% interest from 01/1987 till realization.
Issues: The main issue was the appropriate indemnification amount for the lost vehicle, with the complainant insisting on the full sum insured of Rs. 1,75,000 and the insurance company offering Rs. 1,00,000 based on the market value assessed by a surveyor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the assessment of the market value of the lost vehicle by a surveyor, which ranged from Rs. 70,000 to Rs. 1,00,000. The court held that indemnification should be based on this assessment and directed the insurance company to pay Rs. 1,00,000 plus interest to the complainant.
Final Decision: The court allowed the complaint and directed the insurance company to indemnify the complainant by paying Rs. 1,00,000 with 9% interest from 01/1987 till realization. The indemnification amount was to be given to the complainant through a bank or personally, and the complainant was required to transfer the Registration Certificate of the vehicle to the insurance company within three weeks.
Mr. Justice M.Y. Kawoosa, President—This complaint has a chequered career. Complainant had insured his vehicle for a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- in the year 1984-85 which was lost in an accident on 27.5.1984. The vehicle had fallen in the river Chenab and suffered total loss. These facts are admitted by the O.P. Claim was not settled by the O.P. Complainant lodged a complaint before this Commission at a belated stage and the complaint was dismissed by this Commission on the ground of laches and being barred by time. Hon’ble Division Bench of High Court set aside the order and found that complaint was filed in time and thus remanded the case back to the Commission. The written version has already been filed. Evidence also has been recorded. The only stand taken by the Insurance Company is that the vehicle could not be traced out from the river. However, market value of the vehicle at that time ranged from Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- which could depend upon the condition of the vehicle because vehicle was not traceable. So the Surveyor offered Rs. one lac to the complainant through his Attorney which was not acceptable to the complainant. Complainant insisted for the recovery of the whole sum insured which is Rs. 1,75,000/-.
2. Heard learned Counsels for the parties. Virtually, there is no dispute about any fact excepting that the O.P. offered Rs. one lac as indemnification but the complainant insisted for the whole sum insured. Learned Counsel for the O.P. has rightly contended that O.P. cannot give whole sum insured. Indemnification is to be given on the basis of market value of the vehicle at that time, depending upon the conditions of the vehicle at the time of accident. Surveyor, appointed, had reported that the compensation should range from Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- and on that account communication also was going on between the Attorney of complainant and the O.P. in the year 1986.
3. Argument of the learned Counsel for the complainant who insists that whole amount be given as compensation to the complainant, is not acceptable. We cannot travel beyond the report of the Surveyor who has assessed the loss from Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-.
4. For these reasons, therefore, we allow the complaint and direct the O.P. to indemnify the complainant by paying him Rs. one lac with 9% interest from 01/1987 till realisation. Learned Counsel for the O.P. has objected to the interest on the ground that the Surveyor had offered the money to the complainant but complainant did not accept this amount. We are not convinced by this argument. The money was not, however, paid by the O.P. It was only offered by the Surveyor. Moreover, compensation money has remained with the O.P. and they have utilised. So interest is payable as aforesaid.
5. The indemnification amount shall be given to the complainant through Bank or if he produces NOC from the Bank, compensation amount shall be paid to the complainant personally. Secondly, amount of indemnification shall be paid to the complainant only after he transfers Registration Certificate of the vehicle in the name of the O.P. within three weeks. The award shall be satisfied within four weeks from the date of transferring of Registration Certificate of the vehicle by the complainant in the name of the O.P.
Complaint disposed of.
–––
