AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the State Commission's Order dated 12.02.2014 in appeal no. 2260 of 2009 arising out of the District Commission's Order dated 25.09.2009 in complaint no. 208 of 2006.
We have heard the learned counsel for the two sides and have perused the material on record including inter alia the District Commission's Order dated 25.09.2009, the State Commission's impugned Order dated 12.02.2014 and the petition.
The dispute relates to an insurance claim.
The respondent-complainant's case in brief was that he got the subject vehicle insured from the petitioner-insurance co. The premium was paid. The policy was valid for the period from 23.01.2006 to 22.01.2007. The vehicle met with an accident on 31.07.2006 i.e. within the validity period of the policy. The insurance co. was intimated. The first surveyor appointed by the insurance co. reported that the case was one of 'total loss'. The workshop to which the damaged vehicle was taken to after the accident by using a crane gave an estimate of Rs. 4,08,760/-. The second surveyor appointed by the insurance co. made a self-admittedly incomplete assessment at Rs. 1,39,781/-. The insurance co. did not settle the claim.
The sole point argued today relates to the quantum at which the claim deserved to be settled.
In this regard we note that the District Commission, inter alia taking into consideration that the first surveyor reported that the case was one of 'total loss', the workshop to which the damaged vehicle was taken after the accident gave an estimate of Rs. 4,08,760/- and the second surveyor self-admittedly made an incomplete assessment of the loss, found it apt that the claim be allowed to the extent of the insured declared value of the subject vehicle (Rs. 4,23,600/-) minus 10% depreciation (Rs.42,360/-) = Rs. 3,81,240/- less salvage. It accordingly ordered the insurance co. to pay a sum of Rs. 3,81,240/- after deducting salvage with interest at the rate of 7.50% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization along with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as cost of litigation.
We also note that in appeal the State Commission re-appraised the case and vide its impugned Order dated 12.02.2014 agreed with the findings of the District Commission.
We find that the District Commission has passed a well-appraised reasoned Order. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, its computation apropos the quantum at which the claim merits to be settled appears to be logical and appropriate. The State Commission, for reasons recorded, has concurred with the District Commission. No element of perversity is perceptible, just as we notice no misappreciation of fact.
We discern no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the findings of the two fora below, as may occasion to call for interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.
The petition, being sans merit, is dismissed.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.