UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs KAMLESH GOVINDLAL PATEL

THIS appeal is preferred by the appellants United India Co. Ltd. against the order dated 10.2.1995 of Gujarat State Commission in Complaint No. 185 of 1993 directing the appellants to pay respondent/complainant Shri Kamlesh Govindlal Patel Rs. 1,22,500/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 1.1.1992 till realisation and cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Brief facts of the case are : 1. The respondent/complainant Kamlesh Govindlal Patel is the owner of Jeep Car No. GJ-01-T-6179 and he insured the same for Rs. 1,70,000/- for comprehensive risk for the period 4.9.1991 to 3.9.1992 with the appellants/opposite party. The said vehicle met with accident on 4.4.1991 and at the time of accident, the driver''s name was stated as Rajeshbhai M. Vora and accordingly F.I.R. was lodged and the information was given to the opposite party. The garage owner, after it was towed to the garage, on visual inspection, estimated damage to the vehicle on basis of repairs at Rs. 1,18,511/-. The Surveyor appointed by the appellants submitted the report and according to his opinion, it was not economical to repair the vehicle and he suggested to the opposite party to make an offer to the complainant for compensation on total loss basis. Accordingly, a joint discussion took place between both the parties and the complainant agreed to accept Rs. 1,47,500/- for the total loss. By letter dated 21.12.1991, consent of the complainant was communicated to the opposite party but thereafter there was no communication from the opposite party.

THE vehicle was kept in a garage named Patco Automobiles Ltd. and they wrote a letter to the respondent on 4.4.1992 that they have no instruction either from the respondent or Insurance Company regarding repairing of the vehicle and that they would charge Rs. 30/- per day as rent from 5.12.1991 till the vehicle is removed from their place. The respondent brought it to the notice of this letter, but there was no response from the appellant. The respondent wrote to appellant on March 1, 1992 that salvage of the vehicle would be disposed of if no action is taken by them within 15 days. Since there is no response, the salvage was disposed of for Rs. 25,000/-. The respondent personally visited the appellant with the above letter by the garage Co. and submitted required necessary documents to them for the settlement of the claim. Thereafter, he wrote to them on 28.5.1992 asking for reasons for not settling the claim even after six months from the date of accident. It is at this stage, a new aspect was brought up. Appellant replied on 10.12.1992 stating that the driving licence No. 503370/AR of the driver Rajesh Vora was for Auto Rickshaw and Light Motor Vehicle other than Transport Vehicle at the time of accident. Since the driver was not holding a transport LMV licence the claim is not admissible. The State Commission went into the question of validity of the driving licence and also as to who was the driver of the vehicle which met with the accident. It came to firm conclusion that Rajeshbhai Vora was the driver and also that he held valid licence to drive the said vehicle. The reliance placed on the two letters of the Regional Transport Officer and the report of Rajdeep Consultants by appellant was disbelieved. The endorsement made on 28.7.1991 on the driving licence itself clearly shows that the licensee Rajeshbhai was entitled to drive a transport vehicle. No one was examined from the Regional Transport Officer''s office to prove how these notings were made in the Certificate dated May 20, 1992 and September 29, 1992. There is no cogent evidence to prove the reasons for repudiation by the appellant. There is no reason for us to interfere with the order of the State Commission. The appellant was, therefore, not justified in repudiating the claim of the respondent/complainant.

AS for the sale of salvage, the respondent is justified in selling for Rs. 25,000/- because the condition of the vehicle was deteriorating in the garage and the garage was charging rent. The appellant''s claim that the estimated value of the salvage at Rs. 70,000/- is not based on actual and realistic detailed estimates. Further delaying the sale of salvage only reduces the price of the salvage and the respondent gave time through his letter and also a visit to the appellant before selling, to come to some decision regarding his claim was not replied to by appellants. In the F.I.R., the Police Officer recorded the driver''s name as Rameshbhai Vora and to prove this, appellants did not examine the Police Officer on oath. Hence this contention by the appellant is disbelieved by the State Commission and we have no reason to think otherwise.

THERE is nothing that the appellant has brought on record any facts or law point that would make us to change the detailed order that has been passed by the State Commission. There is no legal infirmity or material irregularity in the order passed by the State Commission. With this discussion, we pass the following order : The appeal is dismissed and the order of the State Commission is confirmed. No order as to costs.