National Insurance Co. Ltd. Dehradun Vs. Ritu Shah - Court Judgment

C.C. Pant, Member:

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.07.2012 passed by the District Forum, Nainital in consumer complaint No. 111 of 2008, whereby the District Forum has partly allowed the consumer complaint and has directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,29,050/- as compensation together with interest @ 6% per annum on the said amount pendente lite and future within a month from the date of the order and Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of litigation.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant Smt. Ritu Shah is the registered owner of a commercial vehicle bearing registration No. UA04- D-1344. She got this vehicle comprehensively insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. “ opposite party for the period from 05.05.2007 to 04.05.2008 at an IDV of Rs. 4,80,000/-. On 20.01.2008, when the insured vehicle was returning from Rai Bareilly to Nainital, it met with an accident and got badly damaged.

An FIR was lodged with Police Station Mohanlalgunj, Lucknow and the opposite party was also informed immediately about the accident by the complainants husband. The complainant spent Rs. 1,44,500/- for repairing of the damaged vehicle and requested the insurance company for indemnification of the loss. The opposite party deputed the Surveyor for spot survey and also for the assessment of loss. According to the Surveyors report, the loss comes to Rs. 66,421/- after deducting Rs. 2,000/- towards salvage. However, the opposite party did not make any payment on the ground that the required documents in original were not provided by the complainant to the insurance company. Thus, the complainant, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Nainital. The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, partly allowed the consumer complaint in the above manner. Aggrieved by the order, the opposite party has filed this appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party argued that the consumer complaint was premature, as the claim of the complainant has not been repudiated by the opposite party and is pending for want of certain documents. The learned counsel also submitted that the District Forum has erred by awarding the compensation on the basis of the payment made by the respondent“complainant for repair of her vehicle. She submitted that the Surveyors report cannot be brushed aside without giving any cogent reason.

Further, the District Forum has itself observed that a depreciation of 50% of the value of the vehicles plastic and rubber part, is admissible but inspite of this observation, the District Forum has deducted only 10% from the cost of repair. Thus, the impugned order suffers from factual and legal infirmity and is based on contradictory observations and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent-complainant reiterated the facts of the case and argued in support of the impugned order.

6. We considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. We are not convinced with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the consumer complaint was premature and the appellant has not committed any deficiency in service. The District Forum has recorded its findings in respect of necessity of documents before making the payment and also in respect of surveyors report and assessed loss. The order passed by the District Forum is well discussed and is a reasoned order. However, we agree that despite making an observation that 50% depreciation on plastic and rubber parts of the vehicle is admissible, the District Forum has made a deduction to the tune of 10% of the value of repairs cost and to this extent, the impugned order is erroneous and needs modification. The cost of the plastic and rubber parts, as claimed by the respondent, comes to Rs. 31,634/-. The District Forum has already deducted 10% from repairs cost and, thus, after making a further deduction of 40%, which comes to Rs. 12,653/- the net amount of the claim comes to Rs. 1,16,397/-. The impugned order is modifiable accordingly. In respect of the rate of interest and cost of litigation, we endorse the view taken by the District Forum.

7. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 24.07.2012 passed by the District Forum, Nainital in consumer complaint No. 111 of 2008 is modified by reducing the award amount from Rs. 1,29,050/- to Rs. 1,16,397/-. Rest of the impugned order is hereby confirmed. Cost of the appeal is made easy.