AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Delay of 93 days as reported by the Registry has sufficiently been explained in the application for condonation of delay. The delay is condoned. The Revision Petition is treated as having been filed within limitation.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 28.07.2016 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as, 'the State Commission') Hyderabad whereby the Appeal preferred by the Respondent herein has been allowed in part and the Respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,35,915/- being 75% of the insured value of the vehicle in question i.e. Rs.5,81,221/-. However, the State Commission directed payment of interest @ 9% on the awarded amount from 28.07.2016 i.e. the date of order till the date of payment whereas the District Forum had awarded interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation i.e. 4.10.2010 till realization.
The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the State Commission was not, at all, justified in reducing the amount from Rs.5,80,000/- awarded by the District Forum to Rs.4,35,915/- as the insured vehicle was severely damaged and the Petitioner had to incur a huge amount towards its repairs. The amount incurred was about Rs.8,57,960/- as per the estimate given M/s Shiva Mechanical Works, Vijayawada. He further submitted that the State Commission was not justified in reducing the period of interest from the date of repudiation to the date of the impugned order. According to him, the Petitioner cannot be made to suffer the loss due to the time spent in various Foras and, therefore, the State Commission ought to have granted interest from the date of repudiation made by the Respondent.
The learned counsel for the Respondent, however, submitted that the State Commission was perfectly justified in reducing the amount of insurance compensation from Rs.5,80,000/- to Rs.4,35,915/- taking it at 75% on non-standard basis. He further submitted that the State Commission was well within its power to limit the starting date of running interest from the date of the impugned order instead of the date of repudiation for the simple reason that it took about more than five years in the matter being decided.
Having given our anxious consideration to the various pleas raised by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the value of the insured vehicle was Rs.5,81,221/-. Even though the vehicle was severely damaged and the Complainant had to incur about Rs.8,57,960/-, the State Commission had rightly granted 75% of the damage on non-standard basis. The maximum amount which Insurance Company is supposed to pay is the insured value and not what the expenses are to be incurred for getting the vehicle repaired. Thus, the order directing payment of Rs.4,35,915/- being 75% of insured value of Rs.5,81,221/- on non-standard basis does not call for interference. So far as the date from which the interest is to be paid, the accident occurred on 19.6.2010 and the Respondent repudiated the claim on 4.10.2010. The Complaint was filed on 2.11.2010 i.e. immediately within a month. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the State Commission should not have modified the date from which the interest is to be paid. The District Forum had rightly granted interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation i.e. 4.10.2010. The impugned order of the State Commission is modified and it is directed that the Respondent shall pay interest @ 9% p.a. from 4.10.2010 till the date of actual payment.
The Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.