The necessity of the respondent's concurrence for a valid and full discharge of the claim, and the allowance of the deduction of salvage value from the awarded compensation.

ORDER

Arun Kumar Goel, President (Oral)- Admitted facts of this case are that the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-37-A-3174 was insured by the appellant for the period 21.3.2002 to 20.3.2003. It was a brand new truck and it met with accident on 11.5.2002, i.e. within less than six months of its purchase and insurance. It was insured in the sum of Rs. 8 lacs with the appellants. This truck was financed by the Tata Finance Limited. Sum of Rs. 6,78,500 was paid on 15th October, 2003 to the financier.

2. It appears that after four months of the accident the respondent approached the appellant with a prayer to pay him Rs. 6,80,000 including salvage of the accidental vehicle in question. After receipt of this, the appellant paid the amount after one year to the financier and receipt in this behalf is Annexure R-2. This voucher is not signed by the respondent, what is its effect will be dealt with hereafter.

3. In case the appellant accepted the offer on 23.9.2002 made vide Annexure R-1, it ought to have immediately released the amount and handed over the salvage to the respondent. For reasons best known to it, appellant slept over the matter until it made the payment on 15.10.2003 vide Annexure R-2 to the financier without associating the respondent. In this behalf what appears to have happened is that the respondent while submitting Annexure R-1, that the loan amount was multiplying because of non-payment of instalments and that appears to be the reason for his having agreed to the amount mentioned in Annexure R-1 on 23.9.2002. In this behalf we have no hesitation in observing that consent should have been either accepted in its entity or should have been rejected. Salvage has not been handed over to the respondent as there is nothing on record in that behalf produced by the appellant.

4. In this view of the matter plea urged on behalf of the appellant by its learned Counsel that with the execution of Annexure R-2, the payment of amount claim was fully discharged is not correct. Why salvage was not handed over to the respondent, in case Annexure R-1 was accepted by the Insurance Company. He had no answer, save and except that with the payment made on 15.10.2003 to the financier, the chapter stood closed. We may observe in this behalf that for getting the valid and full discharge concurrence of the respondent was necessary. The submission on behalf of the appellant in that behalf is hereby rejected.

5. In the aforesaid background another very salient feature in this case is that the truck had met with accident on 11.5.2002, and the matter was pending finalization for payment of compensation thereafter with the appellant Insurance Company, even then it called upon the respondent to get the policy renewed. Annexure C-4 is the cover note dated 4.3.2003 whereby policy was renewed from 21.3.2003 to 20.3.2004 after charging Rs. 15,759 towards the premium for vehicle in question. This shows the efficiency of the Insurance Company in the present case. However we leave this matter here only without observing anything else.

6. In view of the aforesaid background when the complaint was filed by the respondent it was resisted on the ground of full and final settlement of the claim by the appellant. This plea has been negatived and it has been directed to pay Rs. 1,21,500 plus Rs. 15,759 along with interest @ Rs. 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 13.1.2004 till realization along with litigation cost of Rs. 2,500. Amount has been made payable by the appellant to the respondent on the latter's depositing salvage and transfer of ownership of the vehicle in favour of the appellant Insurance Company. At this stage Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh Chandel learned Counsel for the respondent stated that Surveyor has assessed the net salvage value of the vehicle at Rs. 20,000 as is evident from the report of the Surveyor placed on record as well as relied upon by the appellant Insurance Company, as Annexure R-3. While considering loss