AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal arises from order dated 20.5.2002 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchmahals in Complaint Application No. 52 of 2001 directing the opponent Insurance Company to pay to the complainant Rs. 9,050/- being the damage to the insured vehicle, Rs. 2,000/- being the amount of towing charges, Rs. 15,000/- being the value of the grass damaged/destroyed in the incident, Rs. 5,650/- being the amount of cost and Rs. 1,000/- being compensation on the head of mental agony and hardship, in all Rs. 27,600/- with interest @ 9% p.a. while also providing for penal interest @ 15% p.a. We have gone through the impugned order. We have heard the learned Advocate for the opponent Insurance Company, now appellant before us. We have also heard the learned representative for the original complainant, now respondent.
THE complainant was carrying grass in the tractor insured with opponent Insurance Company on 14.11.1999 when there was sudden fire in the grass resulting into loss of grass and damage to the tractor and trolley. THE complainant submitted claim to the opponent Insurance Company. As the opponent Insurance Company repudiated the claim on 27.7.2000, complainant was required to approach the learned Forum praying for compensation in the sum of Rs. 80,000/- with interest and cost. THE opponent Insurance Company resisted the complaint inter alia on the ground that the driver of the tractor did not hold valid licence at the time of the accident in question and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent Insurance Company in repudiating the claim by saying ''no claim''. Upon appreciation of the material placed on record, the learned Forum came to the conclusion that repudiation was not justified and there was deficiency in service on the part of the opponent Insurance Company. THE learned Forum, therefore, allowed the claim as per the impugned order which has been answered in this appeal. The learned Advocate for the opponent Insurance Company would first submit that award of Rs. 15,000/- in respect of loss of grass is not justifiable. Reference in this connection is made to the policy and documents which speak about the insurance in question coupled with Clause No. 70. Clause No. 70 reads as under: "In consideration of payment of additional premium of Rs........ it is hereby declared and agreed that the limit of liability under Section II-I(ii) of the policy is increased from Rs. 6,000/- to Rs....... only in respect of property other than property belonging to the insured or held in trust or in the custody or control of the insured. It is further specifically understood and agreed that the increased limit does not apply to property carried in the vehicle hereby insured. Subject otherwise to the terms exceptions, conditions and limitations of this policy".
On a plain reading of the aforesaid clause, it would clearly appear that the grass carried in the vehicle in question was not the subject matter of insurance in question. Hence, the relief granted in that respect cannot be sustained.
It has next been submitted that the learned Forum has awarded towing charges in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- without there being any evidence in that respect. It has been submitted that the trolley connected with the tractor was not the subject matter of insurance and the towing charges were referable to the towing of the trailer and not the tractor. It appears from the description of the xerox copy of the receipt of towing charges appearing on page 8 of the impugned order that the towing charges were paid for towing the trolley and not the tractor. In that view of the matter, the amount of Rs. 2,000/- cannot be awarded in favour of the complainant.
IT has finally been submitted that award of cost and compensation is not justifiable inasmuch as Surveyor assessed the claim at Rs. 9,050/- and that could have been offered to the complainant had the complainant not demanded excessive amount of compensation. We cannot subscribe to this submission inasmuch as it was open to the opponent Insurance Company to offer compensation accordingly instead of repudiating the claim by saying ''no claim'' to the complainant. In our considered opinion, the learned Forum rightly upheld the grievance of the complainant about deficiency in service of the opponent Insurance Company. We, however, propose to award lumpsum Rs. 1,000/- both for cost and compensation, in view of the aforesaid circumstances. In the result, following order is passed. ORDER Impugned order dated 20.5.2002 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchmahals in Complaint Application No. 52 of 2001 is hereby modified as under: 1. Opponent Insurance Company will pay to the complainant Rs. 9,050/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till payment and cost and compensation quantified at Rs. 1,000/-. 2. The amount of Rs. 14,160/- is stated to have been deposited in this appeal by the Insurance Company. Office to verify the amount and refund to the Insurance Company, with interest, if any, by A/c. Payee cheque. The Insurance Company shall comply with the modified order as stated above within six weeks from today. This appeal is accordingly disposed of, with no further order as to costs.
Appeal disposed of.