National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kusum Sharma - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1111756
CourtDelhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided OnSep-12-2008
Case NumberAppeal No. 2008 of 725
JudgeJ.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE RUMNITA MITTAL, MEMBER
AppellantNational Insurance Co. Ltd.
RespondentKusum Sharma
Excerpt:
consumer protection act, 1986 - section 15 - comparative citation: 2009 (3) cpj 221j.d. kapoor, president (oral): 1. this appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 11.2.2008, whereby the appellant has been directed to indemnify the loss by way of theft in the following terms: (i)   to pay a sum of rs. 3,50,000 with interest @ 9% from 2.3.2007 till realization. (ii)  to pay a sum of rs. 5,000 to the complainant as compensation. (iii)  to also pay a sum of rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation to the complainant. 2. feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. impugned order has been assailed mainly on the ground that the vehicle in question was not road worthy as it did not have permit, road tax deposit challan was not valid and fitness was only upto 5.3.2005, which was in contravention of provision of motor vehicles act, secondly that the district forum has not allowed the depreciation of 10% while assessing the market value of the vehicle against the insured declared value (idv) and thirdly the district forum has also not directed the respondent to transfer the registration of the vehicle in the name of the appellant. 4. so far as two contentions are concerned we find force in it as in cases of total loss particularly loss by way of theft, we have taken a view that the insurance companies can re-assess the market value of the vehicle by way of depreciated value by 5% per year in case of passenger vehicle and in case of commercial vehicle 10% per year. 5. as regards the contention of the appellant that the vehicle was not road worthy as it was having lawful permit, etc., we do find any force as it was the vehicle which was insured and any other aspects are not relevant. this violation may result in prosecution if the vehicle is brought on road, by the concerned authorities. so far as the indemnification of the vehicle by way of theft which is total loss against the policy is concerned, it covers only indemnification of loss by way of damage to the vehicle or by way of theft. 6. foregoing reasons persuade us to partly allow the appeal, by allowing the appellant to indemnify the loss by depreciating the value of the vehicle @ 10% p.a. and direct the respondent to take steps to transfer the vehicle in the name of the appellant. 7. the impugned order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order. 8. bank guarantee/fdr, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith. 9. a copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned district forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record room. appeal partly allowed.
Judgment:

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral):

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 11.2.2008, whereby the appellant has been directed to indemnify the loss by way of theft in the following terms:

(i)   To pay a sum of Rs. 3,50,000 with interest @ 9% from 2.3.2007 till realization.

(ii)  To pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 to the complainant as compensation.

(iii)  To also pay a sum of Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation to the complainant.

2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.

3. Impugned order has been assailed mainly on the ground that the vehicle in question was not road worthy as it did not have permit, road tax deposit challan was not valid and fitness was only upto 5.3.2005, which was in contravention of provision of Motor Vehicles Act, secondly that the District Forum has not allowed the depreciation of 10% while assessing the market value of the vehicle against the insured declared value (IDV) and thirdly the District Forum has also not directed the respondent to transfer the registration of the vehicle in the name of the appellant.

4. So far as two contentions are concerned we find force in it as in cases of total loss particularly loss by way of theft, we have taken a view that the insurance companies can re-assess the market value of the vehicle by way of depreciated value by 5% per year in case of passenger vehicle and in case of commercial vehicle 10% per year.

5. As regards the contention of the appellant that the vehicle was not road worthy as it was having lawful permit, etc., we do find any force as it was the vehicle which was insured and any other aspects are not relevant. This violation may result in prosecution if the vehicle is brought on road, by the concerned authorities. So far as the indemnification of the vehicle by way of theft which is total loss against the policy is concerned, it covers only indemnification of loss by way of damage to the vehicle or by way of theft.

6. Foregoing reasons persuade us to partly allow the appeal, by allowing the appellant to indemnify the loss by depreciating the value of the vehicle @ 10% p.a. and direct the respondent to take steps to transfer the vehicle in the name of the appellant.

7. The impugned order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

8. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith.

9. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

Appeal partly allowed.