Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Prem Narain, Presiding Member
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Appellant
Versus
JAMSHED - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 2597 of 2015 in Appeal No. 905 of 2012
Decided on : 05-07-2017
Mr. N.K. Ciiauhan, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. Govind Narayan and Mr. Neeraj, Advocates, for the Respondents No. 1; Mr. Pallavi Deepika, Advocate, for the Respondents No. 2
The main legal point established is the interpretation of the insurance claim settlement based on the Net of Salvage Basis and the application of the Insurance Act, 1938.
Headnote:
Insurance Claim - Overloading - Insurance Act, 1938 - IDV, Net of Salvage Basis - [Insurance Claim] - [Overloading] - [Insurance Act, 1938] - The court discussed the issue of overloading and the assessment of the insurance claim based on the Net of Salvage Basis. The court considered the Insurance Act, 1938 and the interpretation of the Insured Declared Value (IDV) in reaching its decision to partly allow the revision petition and direct the Insurance Company to settle the insurance claim for Rs. 10,70,000.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's truck was insured and caught fire, leading to a repudiated insurance claim. The District Forum allowed the complaint, but the State Commission dismissed the appeal, leading to a revision petition by the insurance company.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurance claim should be settled based on the Net of Salvage Basis, resulting in a directed settlement of Rs. 10,70,000 with interest.
Issues: The issues involved overloading of the vehicle, assessment of the insurance claim, and the interpretation of the surveyor's report.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the lack of evidence for overloading, the surveyor's recommendation for settlement on the Net of Salvage Basis, and the calculation of the insurance claim based on the Insured Declared Value.
Final Decision: The revision petition was partly allowed, directing the Insurance Company to settle the insurance claim for Rs. 10,70,000 with interest, and modifying the orders of the lower fora.
ORDER
Prem Narain, Presiding Member. - This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., against the order dated 14.8.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Appeal No. 905/2012.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant get insured his truck No. RJ-2-4192 with the opponent insurance company for the period from 11.3.2011 to 10.3.2012 for an IDV of Rs. 14,20,000. The truck of the complainant caught sudden fire on27.5.2011 in which the truck was burnt completely and turned into ashes, regarding which the opponent insurance company was immediately intimated. The insurance claim was filed before the opponent insurance company which was repudiated. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum for insurance claim amount of Rs. 14,20,000 and other compensation. The opponent No. 1 filed its reply to the complaint before the District Forum and stated that the vehicle of the complainant was burnt due to overloading than the capacity of the vehicle. Therefore there is violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy consequently the insurance claim was rightly repudiated. As per the survey report vehicle suffered damages to the extent of Rs. 900,000. They have not committed any deficiency in service by repudiating the claim of the complainant. The complaint of the complaint may be dismissed.
3. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alwar, (in short 'the District Forum') after considering the submissions of the parties allowed the complaint as under on 12.6.2012:
"It is therefore, ordered that the O/P insurance company within one month will pay to the O/P No. 2 bank the balance due loan amount of Rs. 12,21,186.17 with any interest etc. Thereon for the above said vehicle out of insurance claim amount of Rs. 14,20,000 and the balance amount and Rs. 50,000 will be paid to the complainant for mental harassment and litigation expenses. If the above said order is not complied within the time fixed then the O/P insurance company will be liable to pay the interest 15% p.a. on the entire amount."
4. Aggrieved by the above order of the District Forum, the opposite party No. 1, petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the State Commission bearing Appeal No. 905 of 2012. The State Commission vide its order dated 14.8.2015 however dismissed the appeal at a cost of Rs. 10,000 and passed the following order:
"Therefore the order dated 12.6.2012 passed by the District Forum in complaint No. 1446/2011 is upheld and appeal of the appellant is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000. The complainant is directed that he will hand over the salvage to the appellant/opponent No. 1 within 30 days. After receiving the salvage the appellant will comply with the order of district forum within 60 days. The amount deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of appeal may be returned to it along with accrued profit. The cost of Rs. 10,000 be paid to the complainant."
5. Hence the revision petition by the opposite party No. 1/petitioner.
6. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that both the Fora below erred in not appreciating the fact that the vehicle was overloaded and that is why it met with the accident. The load challan filed by the complainant with the Insurance Company was only the carbon copy and therefore, the Insurance Company appointed an Investigator to verify from the original GR. The Investigator has given his report dated 20.10.2011 and has clearly stated that the original GR 1788 was found blank with the transporter. The transporter has given his statement that three copies of this challan are given to the driver, who completes the same and one copy is later submitted to the transporter. The GR 1788 for this vehicle and for this journey was found out to be blank with the transporter. It means that whate
