SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 19465

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
UNITED INDIA INSUR. CO. LTD. & ANR – Appellant
Versus
SREI INTERNATIONAL THROUGH ASHOK LUNIYA & ANR – Respondent
SC/22/A/24/187



Petitioner Advocates:SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR PAUL ,Respondent Advocate: R-1 & 2 Shri Hitendra Tiwari

AFR / NAFR CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PANDRI, RAIPUR Date of Institution: 22/03/2024 Date of Final Hearing: 18/09/2024 Date of Pronouncement: 08/10/2024 APPEAL No.- FA/24/187 IN THE MATTER OF :

1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Manager, Branch : Jagdalpur, Anupama Chowk, Jagdalpur, Dist. Bastar (C.G.) – 494 001 … O.P. Nos.1/ Appellant No.1

2. Administrative Officer, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch – Jagdalpur, Anupama Chowk, Jagdalpur, Regd. & Corporate Office: First Floor, HDFC House, Dist. Bastar (C.G.) – 494 001 … O.P. Nos.2/ Appellant No.2 Through : Assistant Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office No.1, First Floor, Krishna Complex, Kutchery Chowk, P.O., Tah. & Dist. Raipur (C.G.) - 492001 Through: Shri P.K. Paul, Advocate Vs.

1. Srei International, Through: Proprietor Shri Ashok Lunia, S/o. Late Shri Narendra Lunia, Indira Ward Jagdalpur, Dist. Bastar (C.G.) – 492 001 … Complainant No.1/ Respondent No.1

2. Vimal Stone Associate Through: Proprietor, Vimal Lunia S/o. Late Shri Narendra Lunia, Semi Urban Industrial Estate, Frezerpur, Jagdalpur, Dist. Bastar (CG) – 494 001 … Complainant No.2/ Respondent No.2 Both through: Shri Hitendra Tiwari, Advocate CORAM: -

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT HON’BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER PRESENT: -

Shri P.K. Paul, Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Hitendra Tiwari, Advocate for the respondents.

O RDE R

PER: - JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against order dated 31.01.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jagdalpur (hereinafter called “District Commission” for short) in Complaint Case No.CC/2018/48 whereby the complaint was partly allowed and the opposite parties / appellants herein were directed to pay the complainants/ respondents the amount incurred in repairing of Hydraulic Excavator owned by them Rs.11,11,260/- (Eleven Lac Eleven Thousand Two Hundred Sixty) with simple interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of complaint 28.12.2018 within one month, failing which the interest was directed to be paid @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint. Compensation for mental agony Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) and cost of litigation Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand) were also directed to be paid.

2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that complainant No.2/ respondent No.2 on 24.01.2003 purchased as L & T Komatsu Hydraulic Excavator machine for Rs.42,30,000/- under hire purchase agreement with L & T Finance Ltd. and got the same insured from the opposite party No.1/ respondent No.1 for the period between 22.01.2003 to 21.01.2004. On 01.02.2003 the complainant No.2/ respondent No.2 sold the said machine to complainant No.1/ respondent No.1. The vehicle was under hire purchase agreement with L & T Finance Co. Ltd. after repayment of entire loan amount no dues certificate was issued by them on 25.05.2006 in favor of complainant No.2/ respondent No.2. Thereafter the complainant No.1/ respondent No.1 received full ownership of the machine. For the upcoming years the complainant No.1/ respondent No.1 was obtaining insurance for the said machine from opposite parties/ appellants and for the period between 22.01.2008 to 21.01.2009 also during which period on 03.06.2008 the said machine was set at fire by the naxalites. The incident was intimated to the police as well as the opposite parties/ appellants. FIR was lodged by Police Station Bacheli. Insurance claim was submitted along with all requisite documents. Survey was also conducted but the claim was not paid by the opposite parties/ appellants. It was contended that in repairing of the machine the complainants/ respondents incurred total amount of Rs.11,11,260/- and seeking direction for payment of that amount complaint was filed before the District Commission.

3. The opposite parties / appellants in their written version except the admitted facts denied all the adverse allegations levelled in the complaint and averred that as the m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top