MANOJ JINDAL vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

THESE two appeals arise from the common order dated 12th April, 1996, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant, Mrs. Manoj Jindal purchased a bus bearing Registration No. DL- IP-2140. The bus was comprehensively insured with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The estimated value of the bus at the time of insurance was Rs. 5 lakhs. The bus was stolen on 14th October, 1993. A report was lodged with the Police. The complainant lodged a claim with the Insurance Company on 20th October, 1993. The Police gave an untraced report dated 3.3.1994. As the claim was not settled, the complainant instituted a complaint before the State Commission on 18th May, 1995. The complaint was contested on behalf of the Insurance Company mainly on the ground that the claim made by the complainant was exaggerated. It was stated that the claim was settled on total loss basis and the amount of compensation offered was Rs. 3,33,500/- which was not accepted by the complainant.

ON the basis of the material placed on record, the State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs. 4,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 1.1.1994. Aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission, the complainant as well as the Insurance Company has filed the appeals. First Appeal No. 308 of 1996

This is an appeal filed by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. We have heard Mr. S.D. Wadhwa, Counsel appearing for the Insurance Co. It was entered by Mr. Wadhwa that the State Commission wrongly awarded a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- as the Assessor had assessed the loss at Rs. 3,33,500/-. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the report of Jeewan Aggarwal, Engineer, Surveyor and Loss Assessor. We have perused the report. Clause (c) of the report reads as under : "Further Regarding Body : It is to be mentioned that body fabricated for Red- line Buses is a simple wooden type body and not steel body the cost of fabrication of such body is not more than Rs. 1.5 lakhs as compared to the cost of steel body the cost of which is around Rs. 2.5 lakhs." In the ultimate paragraph, it is recorded by the Surveyor as under : "Considering all the above mentioned facts into consideration, it was concluded that the market value of Ashok Leyland Bus Model 1992 at the time of loss i.e. in the month of October, 1993, was about Rs. 3,35,000/- plus - minus 5%."

THE Assessor had assessed the market value of the bus on the basis that it was simple wooden type body. But, there is an evidence on the record that the bus had a steel body. In view of this, the market value of the bus even according to the valuation of the Assessor would be Rs. 4,35,000/-. THE Assessor also remarked that this was "plus - minus 5%". THE State Commission awarded a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/-. THEre is hardly any difference between the amount awarded by the State Commission and as assessed by the Surveyor. THEre is no force in this appeal. It is dismissed. First Appeal No. 237 of 1996 This appeal has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of the compensation. We have perused the order of the State Commission. The State Commission has awarded interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 1.1.1994 allowing about two months, time for supposed processing of the claim till the date of payment. In our opinion this is a fair compensation awarded to the complainant. We find no force in this appeal also. It is dismissed. As a result of the above discussion both the appeals are dismissed. However, the parties left to bear their respective costs. Appeals dismissed.