Back
UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUCKNOW
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Palok Basu, President & Mr. Raghunath Prasad, Member
KIRAN GUPTA—Complainant
versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.—Opposite Parties
Complaint Case No. C/76 of 1999—Decided on 27.10.2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. Nilay Gupta, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties :Mr. Vineet Srivastava, Advocate.
The court upheld the complainant's entitlement to the assessed loss amount and granted interest for the denial of the rightful claim.
Headnote:
Insurance - Vehicle Insurance - Claim for total loss - Assessment of loss and salvage value - Entitlement to interest - Complaint partly allowed
Fact of the Case:
The vehicle in question, comprehensively insured, met with an accident resulting in total loss. The claim was initially assessed at Rs. 5,00,000, then at Rs. 5,48,500. The complainant filed a complaint as the claim was not settled due to alleged non-provision of documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the loss was assessed at Rs. 5,48,500, and the salvage value was determined to be Rs. 1,25,000. The complainant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,23,500 with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing the complaint.
Issues: Assessment of loss and salvage value, entitlement to interest, non-settlement of claim
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined the appropriate loss and salvage value, and granted the complainant a sum with interest for the denial of the rightful claim.
Final Decision: The complaint partly succeeded, and the Insurance Company was ordered to pay Rs. 4,23,500 to the complainant with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing the complaint.
Mr. Justice Palok Basu, President—A complaint was filed with the allegations that the vehicle in question bearing Registration No. UP-63A-8077 which was comprehensively insured with the opposite parties for a period 22.11.1997 to 21.11.1998 met with an accident on 23.7.1998 while taking cement bags at Dramandganj due to which there was total loss. The claim was filed but on the ground that documents in question were not given, the claim was not settled.
2. Initially a total loss was assessed for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000. When the representation was made, another Surveyor was deputed who assessed the loss for Rs. 5,48,500. The money was ready to be offered but the complainant instead accepting filed the complaint that it was not coverage on the ground of total loss.
3. We have seen the material available on record. It is true that the vehicle in question was initially purchased as per admission contained in paragraph 2 of the complaint for a sum of Rs. 6,52,028 on which accessories, etc. were fitted the cost of which was Rs. 1,82,921. In the first assessment of the Surveyor Kodesia and Company the total loss was assessed by the Surveyor for a sum of Rs. 7,00,000 but on the computation point the loss was assessed on the market value. It was assessed for a sum of Rs. 4,98,500. It is itself admitted to the Insurance Company, as given in the second survey report Naresh Kumar and Company, that the total loss was assessed for a sum of Rs. 5,48,500. On the one hand where the stand of the first Surveyor is that the salvage value comes to Rs. 1,25,000, in the second survey report of Naresh Kumar and Company the salvage value has been assessed between Rs. 1,50,000 to Rs. 1,60,000. For the purpose of decision we are satisfied that the salvage which can be claimed as a right will be only a sum of Rs. 1,25,000. We also find that there is no further error in the case. The loss assessed by Naresh Kumar and Company except the salvage is just and proper.
4. Thus to that extent the complaint is liable to succeed for a sum of Rs. 5,48,500 rounded off to Rs. 5,50 000 minus Rs. 1,25,000 = Rs. 4,23,500. The salvage is being retained, as per the argument of the learned Counsel for the complainant, by the complainant itself. Thus to that extent as aforesaid the Insurance Company has a right to get that money adjusted from the total claim to be paid. In the circumstances, we are further satisfied that the complainant is entitled for the interest @ 6% per annum for the denial of the rightful claim of the complainant from the date of filing of the complaint which is dated 16.6.1999.
ORDER
5. The complaint succeeds in part. The Insurance Company will pay a sum of Rs. 4,23,500 to the complainant with 6% interest per annum with effect from 16.6.1999 till the date of payment within two months. Parties will bear their own costs.
6.
Complaint partly allowed.
––
