Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs New Mangalore Port Trust

''PENNY wise pound foolish'' saying applies in full force to the case of the appellants.

APPELLANTS are aggrieved by the order of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 30.6.2001 allowing the complaint of the respondent-complainant holding that appellants were liable to pay a sum of Rs. 7,34,246.04 to the respondent being the amount spent by the respondent for repairs of a fire tender at Ahmedabad which was comprehensively insured with the appellants for a sum of Rs. 8,98,505/-. State Commission also held that respondent was entitled to Rs. 25,000/- as damages for deprivation of the use of the fire tender for a long period. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- was ordered to be paid by the appellants towards expenses. A deduction of Rs. 2,86,235/- was given as that amount had already been received by the respondent. Lastly it was directed that appellant shall pay interest on the remaining amount @ 12% per annum from the date of the complaint (22.12.1997) till payment. One month''s time was granted to the appellant to make the payments from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. During the period of policy fire tender met with an accident on 2.5.1987 and suffered extensive damages. APPELLANTS were informed of the damages sustained by the fire tender on 4.5.1987 and by subsequent letter was asked to pay the insured amount. A Surveyor was appointed by the appellants who estimated the loss at Rs. 3,14,875/-. APPELLANTS, therefore, opined that the fire tender could be repaired, though respondent had said that it was total loss and not worth repairing. Respondent asked for full compensation as per terms of the policy but the appellants insisted that fire tender could be repaired within a reasonable cost. Respondent was then asked to send the fire tender for repair either to Bangalore or Ahmedabad. It was sent to Ahmedabad and was handed over to M/s. Wadia Body Builders on 1.7.1988. The builder submitted the visual report of estimate of repairs on 4.11.1988 which was Rs. 3,30,642/-. After obtaining the permission from the appellants fire tender was dismantled. Now the Body Builder estimated cost of repairs at Rs. 4,26,373/-. After a gap of eight years the fire tender was repaired and brought to New Mangalore Port on or around 9.2.1995. More defects were noticed and these again were repaired by the Body Builder who submitted its final bill. Respondent paid a sum of Rs. 8,34,246.04 to the Body Builder towards repairs and submitted its claim to the appellants. Since the appellants defaulted in making the payment respondent filed a complaint with the State Commission claiming Rs. 15,61,149.04. This was on the basis of two receipts amounting to Rs. 7,34,246.04 and interest @ 18% per annum on the said amount from the date of claim till 30.11.1997 which interest amounted to Rs. 7,21,903/-. Apart from this respondent claimed travelling expenses of Rs. 50,000/- and damages for deprivation of the use of the fire tender at Rs. 50,000/-. After considering the whole aspect of the matter, State Commission allowed the complaint in terms mentioned above. We have heard Mr. Mishra, the learned Counsel for the appellants. It was at the instance of the appellants that fire tender was sent for repair to Ahmedabad. It was for the appellants, therefore, to meet the cost of repairs. We do not find any error in the order of the State Commission for us to take a different view. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal. Appeal dismissed.