NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. And LTD. vs PYARESAHEB S.SHAIKH

THE short point to be decided in this case is whether the respondent who was the complainant before the State Commission is entitled to payment of interest @ 12% in addition to the damages which has been awarded by the State Commission.

COMPLAINANT-Mr. Pyaresheb S. Shaikh had insured his vehicle for Rs. 5,67,000 which met with an accident on 20.2.1996. He had spent Rs. 2,15,823 on repairs. The Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor who assessed the damages at Rs. 1,00,500 after one year of the accident. As the complainant refused to accept the same, the Insurance Company forwarded a cheque for the said amount to the financier i.e., M/s. Transport Corporation of India Finance Ltd. The State Commission depreciating the unilateral action of the Insurance Company and also non-reimbursement of the amount spent by the complainant, ordered payment of Rs. 3,20,000. As one lakh of rupees has already been paid to the financier, the State Commission directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs. 2,20,000 with 12% interest from the date of the complaint till the actual payment with Rs. 10,000 as costs.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. This is a clear case where Swaraj Mazda vehicle of the complainant insured for Rs. 5,67,000 had met with a major accident within one year of its purchase, wherein the complainant had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 2,15,823 vide bill No. 826 dated 16.7.1996 from M/s. Eros General Agencies (Automobile Division), Ghat Road, Nagpur. The said bill was delivered to the Insurance Company on 24.7.1996. The Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor Mr. P.K. Rathi, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,00,500 as against a total claim of Rs. 7,76,823 by the complainant on different grounds. The Insurance Company unilaterally paid the said amount to the financier and the complainant could not get back his vehicle for three years and suffered immense loss.

AS against the bill of Rs. 2,15,823, the State Commission rounded this figure to Rs. 2,20,000 and awarded 12% interest from the date of the complaint till the actual payment in favour of the complainant, treating Rs. 1.00 lakh already paid to the financier as compensation. This tantamounts double relief. Accordingly, we do not see any justification for award of interest @ 12% on the top of compensation to the tune of Rs. one lakh. To that extent we modify the order of the State Commission. We do not wish to interfere with the costs of Rs. 10,000 as awarded by the State Commission in favour of the complainant. Order accordingly. Ordered accordingly.