SURINDER PAL Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order passed on 18/10/2000 by learned Single Judge in I.A.1717/2000 in S.No.513/99 is under challenge by the plaintiff/appellant in this appeal by which learned Single Judge directed the amount of Rs.5,47,000.00 to be released in favour of defendant/respondent No.2.

(2.) Under the Wire Purchase Agreement an amount of Rupees four lakhs Mas disbursed to the appellant to enable him to purchase truck Tata 1612 (Make 1997) bearing Registration No.WR 10GA-0030; Engine N0.697-D23-PSO-129521 and Chasis No.360-324-FSQ-008814. The vehicle Mas insured with respondent No.1. Under the said Hire Purchase agreement the appellant had agreed to Pay Monthly hire charges Rs.14,688.00 which was payable in 35 Instalments. Three instalments had already been paid by the appellant. In the meanwhile, vehicle was stolen. Appellant lodged claim with the Insurance Company. AS claim was not settled by the Insurance Company, on 22/2/99 suit was filed by the appellant claiming a decree for Rs.6,50,000.00 with interest @ 24% against the Insurance Company and an injunction against respondent No.2 prohibiting it from levying any damages/charges/penal interest against the outstandings.

(3.) During the pendency of the suit the Insurance Company deposited a sum of Rs.5,47,000.00 and took up a stand that the obligation of the insurer under the policy is only to indemnify the market value of the vehicle prevailing at the time of loss and not the insured value, After the amount had been deposited respondent No.2 filed an application (I.A.1717/2000) praying that the amount be released in its favour. This prayer was opposed by the appellant. Learned Single Judge on 18/10/2000 passed the impugned order directing release of Rs 5,47,000.00 in favour of respondent No.2. Learned Single Judge took note of Clause INT 10 of the policy and also of the fact that by that date more than Rupees six lakhs including delayed payment charges were payable by the plaintiff/appellant to respondent No.2. This order is under challenge by the appellant.