Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member and Vinay Kumar, Member
UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD. - Appellant
Versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ORS. - Respondents
First Appeal No. 779 of 2006 against Order dated 21.11.2006 in CC No. 07 of 2003 of State Commission, Uttaranchal
Decided on : 03-02-2012
Mr. Pradeep Misra and Mr. Daleep Kumar Dhyani, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. P.K. Seth, Advocate, Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Advocate, for the Respondent
Proper evidence and verification are essential in consumer complaints, and interest rates should be just and reasonable based on the prevailing circumstances.
Headnote:
Insurance - Consumer Dispute - Marine Insurance Act, 1963, Section 64VB - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21 - The appellant seeks enhancement of compensation awarded by the State Commission - The complaint related to transport of a failed transformer covered under a Marine Insurance Policy - Dispute over assessment of loss and settlement of claim - Court upheld the decision of the State Commission, emphasizing the need for proper evidence and verification in consumer complaints - Enhanced the rate of interest from 6% to 9%.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant seeks enhancement of compensation awarded by the State Commission for the transport of a failed transformer covered under a Marine Insurance Policy. Dispute arose over assessment of loss and settlement of claim.
Finding of the Court:
The Court upheld the decision of the State Commission, emphasizing the need for proper evidence and verification in consumer complaints. Enhanced the rate of interest from 6% to 9%.
Issues: Dispute over assessment of loss, reliance on surveyor reports, and rate of interest for compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: Proper evidence and verification are essential in consumer complaints. Interest rates should be just and reasonable based on the prevailing circumstances.
Final Decision: The appeal is partly allowed, enhancing the rate of interest from 6% to 9% while upholding the compensation and litigation expenses awarded by the State Commission.
ORDER
Vinay Kumar, Member - The present appeal is filed by Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd., against the following respondents, challenging the decision of Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in CC No. 7 of 2003
1. New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
2. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd.,
3. Shri J.S. Mehta, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
4. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
2. The appellant has sought the following relief:
"(a) allow the appeal and set aside the part of decision dated 21.11.2006 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttaranchal at Dehradun in Complaint No. 7/2003 so far as it held that report of first Surveyor cannot be relied upon, granted interest from filing of Complaint and not from the date of lodging the claim, rate of interest 6% as it was much more in 1996-1997 and deductions of 70% in labour cost as per the report of second Surveyor, and
(b) pass such other order or orders which this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice,
(c) award costs of this Appeal in favour of Appellant and against Respondent No. 1."
3. The appellant is thus seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the State Commission. After adjusting the amount of Rs. 12,04,965 already paid by the insurer to the Complainant (Refer para 20 in the impugned order) the State Commission awarded Rs. 25,01,321.10 as payable to the Complainant in the following terms:
"In view of above, the consumer complaint is partly allowed and the O.P. No. 1, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is directed to pay sum of Rs. 25,01,321.10 (Rupees twenty five lacs one thousand three hundred twenty one and ten paise only) to the complainant together with interest @ 6% p.a. w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 1.4.2003 till payment and Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) as litigation expenses."
4. While the present appeal impleads all four OPs as respondent Nos. 1 to 4, the order of the State Commission, as well as the relief sought by the appellant, are both against respondent No. 1/OP-1 i.e. the New India Assurance Company Ltd. alone. During the course of the present proceedings, a written response has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4/Oriental Insurance Company stating that
"That the respondent No. 4 has only insured the puling unit carrier No. UWA-9976 owned by the appellant vide cover note No. 132438 for the period from 15.7.1996 to 14.7.1997 in respect of the third party act liability which may be incurred by the insured vehicle in respect of death or injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place."
It has therefore been clarified by respondent No. 4 that no cause of action accrued in favour of the appellant vis-a-vis respondent No. 4. Further, during the course of the present proceedings, an application was filed by the appellant seeking deletion of respondent No. 3 from the memo of parties. Notice issued to respondent No. 2 did not evoke any response from him. However, in the consumer complaint before the State Commission, no relief had been sought against OPs 2 to 4.
5. The complaint related to transport of a failed transformer of the appellant/complainant from Pauri Garhwal (Uttaranchal) to B.H.E.L. Jhansi for repair. The risk of loss/damage in transit was covered under a Marine Insurance Policy effective from 12.7.1996. The trailer/vehicle which carried this cargo belonged to the appellant/complainant. The vehicle met with an accident on 20.7.1996 while transiting through Daurala, Meerut. The transformer fell down from the trailer and suffered consequent damage. As per the complainant, the B.H.E.L. had given a pre-accident estimate of repair on 11.1.1996 for Rs. 34.5 lakh. After the accident, B.H.E.L. made a fresh estimate of Rs. 82.46 lakh, as the cost of repair. As per the complainant, the eventual cost of repair, including levy of excise and sales tax came to Rs. 91,12,479. Cl
