Bhanwar Lal Sharma vs National Insurance Co. Ltd

This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 20.11.2014 of the State Commission in appeal no. 516 of 2013 arising out of the Order dated 18.04.2013 of the District Commission in complaint no. 1017 of 2012.

We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant (the petitioner herein) and the learned counsel for the insurance co. (the respondent herein). We have also perused the record, including inter alia the Order dated 18.04.2013 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 20.11.2014 of the State Commission and the petition.

The matter relates to an insurance claim. Admitted facts of the case are that the complainant had taken the subject insurance policy on 24.06.2009. The premium was paid. The policy was valid. During the subsistence of the policy the insured vehicle met with an accident. The sole point in dispute is regarding the quantum of loss i.e. the quantum at which the claim merits to be honoured.

The insurance co.’s surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 24,431/-.

The District Commission assessed the loss at Rs. 2,00,000/-. It accordingly ordered the insurance co. to pay Rs. 2,00,000/-  to the complainant towards the loss along with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation towards the mental torture.

In appeal filed by the insurance co. the State Commission inter alia specifically observed that the District Commission had assessed the loss without sufficient evidence / material being available. It also recorded that opportunity was offered to the complainant that the matter may be remanded back to the District Commission so that the complainant could adduce his evidence to substantiate his case but the offer was not accepted and a submission was made on behalf of the complainant to decide the case on the basis of the available material. The State Commission made an observation to the effect that the surveyor’s report was not binding but adequate evidence had not been adduced by the complainant to justify overruling it. And having regard to the available material on record it deemed it appropriate to go with surveyor’s report, who had assessed the loss at Rs. 24,431/-. It accordingly ordered the insurance co. to pay Rs. 24,431/- to the complainant towards the loss along with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation towards the mental torture with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 18.04.2013 i.e. the date of delivery of the judgment of the District Commission.

We do not find any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the State Commission relying on the surveyor’s report in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case.

We however notice that the interest has been ordered to be paid from the date of delivery of the judgment of the District Commission i.e. 18.04.2013. The accident took place on 29.03.2010. The surveyor made its report on 09.06.2011 i.e. after almost 15 months. We fail to understand that after getting the belated surveyor’s report what prevented the insurance co. from settling the claim forthwith in consonance with the loss assessed therein. The District Commission passed its Order on 18.04.2013. We find that taking this as the date from which the interest may be awarded to be not quite rational. In the facts and peculiar circumstances of the present case, inter alia also considering that the surveyor’s report came beyond reasonable period and thereafter too the claim was not honoured immediately as it ought to have been, we find it appropriate that the interest should be awarded from 29.03.2010 i.e. the date of the accident, when the complainant became entitled to the claim, since there is no other rational date forthcoming.

The impugned Order of the State Commission is thus modified to the extent that the interest awarded by it shall be paid, in the circumstances of the case, from 29.03.2010 i.e. the date of the accident which is the genesis of entitlement.

The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.

The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to both parties in the petition and to their learned counsel as well as to the District Commission immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.