AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS is complainant''s appeal for the enhancement of an award from Rs. 2,01,000/- to Rs. 4,00,000/-. The award of Rs. 2,01,000/- was passed by District Forum, Nainital vide its order dated 13.3.2003.
THE insured vehicle of the complainant was totally destroyed in an accident. It was insured for Rs. 4,00,000/-. One of the Surveyors reported the loss of Rs. 2,01,000/-. It is alleged that the opposite party was ready to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Still the Forum has awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,01,000/- only. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and gone through the records. THE judgment of the learned Forum shows that both the learned Counsels for the parties had agreed and argued before the learned Forum that they are satisfied if an order is passed for payment of Rs. 2,01,000/-. This is a consent judgment and order. It is not a collusive decree. THE learned Counsel for the complainant Mr. S.K. Gupta vehemently argued that there was no such statement of the learned Counsel for the complainant. We have gone through the grounds of appeal which has incidentally been filed by the same Counsel who had argued and given the consent before the learned Forum. It is nowhere written in this ground of appeal that he never given any consent letter. THE complainant has also filed an affidavit along with his memorandum of appeal, but, not a single word has been said in the affidavit that no such consent was given. What the Court or the Forum or any Judicial Authority has endorsed in the judgment, shall be taken to be a gospel truth unless it is rebutted by some cogent and trustworthy evidence. There is not even a single word in this appeal to rebut this endorsement of the Forum. We have to take it as correct. When it is a consent decree, it did not lie in the mouth of the appellant to have filed this appeal.
The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that atleast interest should be enhanced. 10% interest has already been allowed. It was in the discretion of the Forum. There is nothing for which this can be interfered with.
THE learned Counsel for the complainant referred the ruling reported in III (1996) CPJ 8 (SC), United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M.K.J. Corporation, in which it has been held that the complainant is entitled to interest at the rate of 12% and atleast 12% interest should be given. THE judgment of the Supreme Court is of a case of 1995. Now the rate of interest has been mercilessly cut down by the Reserve Bank of India. Every body is to be guided by that. Enhancement of the rate of interest, also, does not appear to be possible. ORDER This appeal has got no force and it is, hereby, dismissed. Cost of this appeal shall be easy. Appeal dismissed.