Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Ashok Bhan, President and Vineeta Rai, Member
NEW INDIA ROAD CARRIER (REGD.) - Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ORS. - Respondents
First Appeal No. 18 of 2006 from Order dated 15.9.2005 in Complaint Case No. 146 of 2001 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh
Decided on : 06-12-2012
Mr. V.P. Sharma and Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. Vishnu Mehra, Advocate, for the Respondent
The insurance company is bound by the insured value and must pay compensation accordingly, as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and relevant judicial precedents.
Headnote:
Insurance - Vehicle Insurance - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 146 - Appellant sought enhancement of the value of the insured vehicle, payment of interest, and compensation - The court discussed the obligation of the owner to take out an insurance policy as per Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the insurance company's obligation to pay compensation based on the insured value - The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Dharamendra Goel v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2008) 3 CPJ 63 (SC) and emphasized that the insurance company cannot disown the insured value and defray inadequate compensation when called upon to pay - The court held that the insurance company was bound by the value put on the vehicle while renewing the policy and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 5,60,000 from Rs. 4,50,000
Fact of the Case:
The appellant purchased a truck and got it insured for Rs. 6,25,000. The truck went missing, and the insurance company assessed its value at Rs. 4,50,000. The appellant sought enhancement of the insured value, payment of interest, and compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the insurance company was bound by the insured value and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 5,60,000 from Rs. 4,50,000. The court also awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.
Issues: The issues involved the assessment of the insured value of the vehicle, the obligation of the insurance company to pay compensation, and the entitlement to interest on the awarded amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the obligation of the insurance company to pay compensation based on the insured value and held that the insurance company was bound by the value put on the vehicle while renewing the policy.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the court directed the respondents to pay the sum of Rs. 5,60,000 to the appellant along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. The respondents were also directed to pay interest on the sum of Rs. 4,50,000 and the balance amount of Rs. 1,10,000 along with interest within a specified period.
ORDER
Ashok Bhan, President - By the impugned order the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (for short, the State Commission) has partly allowed the complaint No. 146 of 2001 filed by the complainant/appellant and directed the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 4,50,000 within two months failing which to pay the awarded amount along with interest @ 9% p.a. as against the claimed amount of Rs. 6,25,000 being the value of the vehicle at the time of the theft of the vehicle. Respondents accepted the order of the State Commission and paid the sum of Rs. 4,50,000 within two months of the passing of the order. Complainant/appellant has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the value of the insured vehicle, payment of interest and compensation.
Facts:
2. Appellant had purchased a drive-away chassis of Tata Diesel truck bearing engine No. 697D23GTO 77 8431, Chassis No. 360324 GTO 724808 at a price of Rs. 5,00,730 from M/s. Commercial Automobiles, Jabalpur. Appellant got the body fabricated on the chassis at the cost of Rs. 1,56,3007- on September 25, 1996. The total cost of the vehicle came to Rs. 6,57,030. The above said truck was got registered with RTO, Jabalpur and was assigned registration No. MP-20/G-4238. The appellant got the said truck insured from the respondents for insurance coverage of Rs. 6,25,000 for the period from August 5, 1997 to August 4, 1998 on payment of the premium demanded. During the currency of the policy the truck went missing from March 17, 1999 with its driver and cleaner from Bihar where it had gone for delivery of goods. Immediately on coming to know that the truck in question had gone missing, appellant went to Bihar and reported the incident on March 29, 1998 to the police station at Ahiyapur, Muzaffarpur, Bihar under whose jurisdiction the incident had occurred. After return from Bihar the appellant informed respondent No. 1 on April 1, 1998 about the loss of the vehicle in writing.
3. Respondents appointed a surveyor/investigator who after visiting the residence of the driver and cleaner of the vehicle and after making inquiries from the relatives of the driver and cleaner of the vehicle concluded that the vehicle was intercepted at some point on return journey and looted after liquidating the driver and the cleaner. The said surveyor assessed the price of the vehicle at Rs. 3,50,000 for the purpose of insurance claim which was enhanced to Rs. 4,50,000 in second survey conducted by him. As the respondents did not settle the claim within a reasonable time, appellant filed the complaint in the State Commission on Sept. 18, 2001 seeking payment of the insured sum of the vehicle and various other reliefs arising out of the deficiency in services rendered by the respondents.
4. Respondents, on being served, entered appearance and filed written statement taking the stand that the surveyor, initially appointed by the respondent had assessed the value of the missing truck at Rs. 3,50,000. In the second report, the value of the truck was revised to Rs. 4,50,000. That the complainant was asked to submit the driving licence of the driver and final police report duly accepted by the Court. Appellant failed to produce the requisite documents because of which claim was not settled.
5. After appraising the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the State Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to pay Rs. 4,50,000 to the appellant within two months failing which interest @ 9% p.a. shall be payable. No relief was granted towards compensation or cost. Respondents accepted the order of the State Commission and paid the sum of. Rs. 4,50,000 within two months of the passing of the order. Complainant has filed the present appeal.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the appellant had got his vehicle insured for Rs. 6,25,000 after paying the premium of the insured value of Rs. 6,25,000. That after having charged the premium on the said va
