Judgment:
A. Venkatarami Reddy, President:
1. The complainant in C.D. No. 802/ 91, District Forum, Guntur preferred this appeal claiming interest at 18% from the date of the accident i.e., 15.8.1984 till the date of payment and not as awarded by the District Forum at the rate of 15% and payment of interest from the date of the complaint i.e., 19.9.1991 till the date of payment on a sum of Rs. 44,314/-.
2. It is not in dispute that due to fire accident, the complainant claimed amounts from two insurance companies i.e., The New India" Assurance Company Ltd., who is the respondent herein and also Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. A joint Surveyor appointed by both the Insurance Companies apportion the liability between the two insurance companies and the liability of the New India Assurance Company was fixed at Rs. 65,000/-. That amount was paid by the New India Assurance Company on 2.9.1989 as evidenced by Ex. B1 in full and final settlement of the claim of the complainant. But subsequently, it was found that there was a mistake committed by the Surveyor in apportioning the liability equally among the two insurance companies while as he has to fix the liability of the New India Assurance Company at 81.64% instead of 50%. The Surveyor therefore rectified the mistake on 17.11.1989 apportioning the liability of the New India Assurance Company as Rs. 1,10,323/- i.e., in a sum of Rs. 41,314/- over and above Rs. 65,200/- already paid by the New India Assurance Company. Since the New India Assurance Company did not pay that amount, this complaint was filed claiming the said sum of Rs. 41,314/- with interest at 18% from the date of the accident till the date of payment of the said amount.
3. The District Forum granted 15% interest on Rs. 41,314/- from the date of the filing of the complaint.
4. An appeal preferred by the New India Assurance Company Ltd., questioning the order of the District Forum so far as it is against them was dismissed on 3.3.1994 in CDA 501 /92.
5. The present appeal is preferred by the complainant.
6. It is firstly submitted by Mr. V. Gourisankara Rao, the learned Counsel for the appellant that the District Forum should have granted rate of interest at 18% and not at the rate of 15%. We are not inclined to agree for the same. The rate of interest granted by the Distt. Forum at 15% is reasonable having regard to the circumstance that the opposite party settled the amount as determined by the Surveyor earlier in full and final settlement of the claim. Hence we are not inclined to enhance the rate of interest.
7. It is next submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the District Forum erred in granting interest from the date of the complaint i.e., 19.9.1991 instead of the date of the accident. On the other hand Mr. Kota Subbarao, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the District Forum has rightly awarded interest from the date of complaint as the opposite party paid as early as in 1987 the amount as determined by the Surveyor in full and final settlement of the claim.
8. In order to consider the aforesaid contention, it is necessary to notice that immediately after the Surveyor's report, the opposite party paid the amount as determined by the Surveyor on 2.7.1987 in full and final settlement of his claim. It was only subsequently that a mistake was noticed in the award of the Surveyor with regard to the apportionment of the liability between the two Insurance Companies. The Surveyor therefore corrected the mistake and determined the liability of the opposite party at Rs. 1,10,323/-. It is thus clear that the opposite party has to pay the enhanced amount of Rs. 41,314/- towards the Insurance claim of the complainant. No doubt the claim was filed some time in 1991. But since the amount of Rs. 65,200/ - was accepted by the complainant in full and final settlement of his claim on 2.7.1987, we are of the view that the opposite party is liable to pay interest on the difference of the amount of Rs. 41,314/- from 2.7.1987 till the date of realisation.
9. The order of the District Forum is accordingly modified to the extent aforesaid mentioned.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. No costs.
Appeal partly allowed.