D.P.S. Choudhary, President:
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 8.9.1998 passed by District Forum, Buxar in Complaint Case No. 62/1998.
2. The admitted facts of the case are thatâ
(i) the complainant was the owner of truck No. BRIA-5619;
(ii) the truck was insured with Oriental Insurance Company (appellant);
(iii) the truck met an accident on 23.5.1996 during the period of its insurance;
(iv) the Insurance Company appointed two Surveyors and they submitted their report. The first Surveyor Madhurendra Roy inspected the damaged truck on 12.6.1996 after about 20 days of the accident and submitted the report on 6.8.1996. This report has been filed on behalf of the appellant during the hearing of the complaint (Annexure-1). Second Surveyor Satish Raj Chauhan inspected the damaged truck and submitted the report. The second report is on record.
3. The District Forum have considered both the reports in detail and held that complainant is entitled for Rs. 35,100/- as the claim of his truck and also allowed interest @ 18% on this amount from 4.9.1996 on the ground that there was considerable delay of about 2 years in the submission of the claim on the part of the appellant which should have been made within three months from the date of accident. The main contention of the appellant is that the impugned order of the District Forum is bad in the eye of law because this fact was not considered that the complainant has not shown the salvage or has deposited the same at the time of final survey and accordingly the appellant had settled the claim. Another contention of the appellant is that rate of interest is excessive and against the principle laid down in several cases by National Commission and State Commissions. It should not have been more than 12% per annum.
4. The learned Lawyer appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the District Forum has held both the reports in detail and thereafter passed the impugned order. The billing arrived at by the District Forum shows that there was deficiency on the part of the appellant. The Insurance Company did not settle the claim within time even after the second report of the Surveyor. The rate of interest awarded by the District Forum is not excessive. It was also contended on behalf of the respondent that the report of the first Surveyor should have been accepted which has settled the claim for a net sum of Rs. 42,638/- only. There was no occasion for the appellant to appoint second Surveyor. The second Surveyor was appointed by the appellant when it was found that the report of the first Surveyor is not of its choice. The law does not permit such liberty to the Insurance Company. The learned Lawyer, however, admitted that there was no cross appeal hence he is not claiming the excess amount as settled by the first Surveyor in his report dated 6.8.1996.
5. We have carefully scrutinised the impugned order and find that the District Forum has gone into the matter in depth. All facts and circumstances have been considered in detail. Admittedly the report of the first Surveyor is on higher side than the report of the second Surveyor but there is no cross appeal by the respondent. Therefore, the finding arrived at by the District Forum does not require interference on merit. However, we are in agreement with this contention of the appellant that the rate of interest @ 18% per annum is excessive. In the recent decision the Honble Apex Court has held that with the reduction of rate of interest by the Reserve Bank of India the rate of interest should not be more than 9% per annum. Accordingly the rate of interest from 18% per annum is reduced to 9% per annum.
6. In the result, with the above modification in the impugned order the appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.
Appeal dismissed.