AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Counsel for the Respondents and Petitioner/OP present. Complainant/ respondent, present, in person. Arguments in both the cases, pertaining to the same order, heard.
Sh. Siraj Mohammad Khan, the complainant, obtained insurance policy regarding his vehicle, from Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., OP. During the subsistence of the insurance policy, on 14.07.2011, when the complainant was going to Sikar, in his vehicle, his car met with
an accident with three Neel cows, one after the other. Those cows had come running and hit the car, due to which, the car became uncontrolled and dashed with the truck trolla parked at some distance. Consequently, the vehicle got damaged. Its roof, bonnet, main glass, window, meter cover, AC window, steering, bumper, head-light, indicator, Antenna, body-shell, AC condenser, radiator, were completely damaged. The insurance company was apprised of this fact, on 16.07.2011. The claim made by the complainant was not settled. Ultimately, the complainant lodged a complaint with the District Forum and prayed for giving Rs.3,15,000/-, with interest @ 12.75% p.a., from 15.07.2011 and rent of general motor carriage in the sum of Rs.100/- per day, total being Rs.8,100/-. He demanded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as costs from the OPs. The OP contested this case. The Surveyor came to the conclusion that the complainant was entitled to a sum of Rs.70,840/-.
The District Forum found that the estimate of body-shell in the sum of Rs.1,82,000/- was not included. It also found that there were other defects and rendered the order in favour of the complainant. The OP was directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,15,000/- less depreciation, to the complainant, along with interest @ 12% p.a., w.e.f. 15.07.2011 and Rs.6,500/- as compensation and costs of this case.
Aggrieved by that order, both the parties preferred appeals before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeals filed by both the parties, but directed that after receipt of Rs.3,15,000/-, less depreciation, the complainant would return the vehicle to the OP.
Against the said order, both the parties filed the above detailed revision petitions. Main argument is that the complainant should be required to return the vehicle to the OP. It has also transpired that his car was stolen on 12.09.2012. In the FIR, it was stated that one, Sh.Mohammad Danish Ansari, took away the vehicle from the complainant after giving the promise that he would get the compensation from the insurance company, shortly. Ultimately, he did not give the vehicle. The matter went up to the Hon''ble High Court. The Hon''ble High Court came to the conclusion that the whereabouts of the car are not known and no action was taken against Mohd. Danish Ansari. An application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C was filed where the complainant did not want to take any action against Sh. Mohd. Danish Ansari and compromised the matter with that accused. It is surprising to note that all these facts were not brought to the notice of the State Commission. The complainant is trying to suppress all these facts. It is stated that revision petition was filed stating all these facts. It is also submitted that only FIR was filed, but no application and consequent order passed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were filed. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any illegality or any flaw. The complainant cannot seek benefit of both the worlds. He will get the amount of Rs.3,15,000/- only, less depreciation amount, after he returns the vehicle to the OP/petitioner. This case (RP 1220/2014) is accordingly disposed of.
In the second case (RP 651/2015), there is delay of 383 days, which was filed by the OP/respondent. He submits that he does not want to contest this case. The same is dismissed as withdrawn. The order of the State Commission is fully maintained.