AVINASH SINGHANIA Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 16.07.2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.163/2011. By the impugned order, the complaint of the appellant (complainant), has been partly allowed and the respondent (O.P.) has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,86,160/ - along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 20.04.2011 till realisation. The District Forum has further directed the respondent (O.P.) to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/ - towards compensation for mental agony and a sum of Rs.5,000/ - as cost of litigation to the appellant (complainant).

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, facts of the case are : that the appellant (complainant) is registered owner of the Truck bearing registration No.C.G.04 -JA -2932 which was comprehensively insured vide Policy No.450300/31/08/01/00001478 for the period from 23.05.2008 to 22.05.2009 with the respondent (O.P.) On 14.01.2009 at about 5 to 6 P.M., the above truck was stolen near Sonu -Monu Dhaba at Siltara, Raipur. First Information Report was lodged at Police Station, Dharsiwa, District Raipur (C.G.), where offence under Section 379 IPC was registered against unknown person. The vehicle in question and accused were not traced then, the Police submitted Khatma No.27/09 dated 29.05.2009 before concerned Judicial Magistrate. The appellant (complainant) submitted his claim before the respondent (O.P.) but the respondent (O.P.) did not decide his claim, a complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum claiming thereby the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle along with interest and costs.

(3.) THE respondent (O.P.) filed its written statement before the District Forum and averred that the appellant (complainant) has not filed Khatma Report, which was accepted by the competent Judicial Magistrate. In the sale certificate and tax invoice issued by Jaika Automobile, the value of the vehicle was mentioned as Rs.13,57,700, therefore, actually the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle is Rs.1357,700/ -. The respondent (O.P.) resisted the claim of the appellant (complainant), interalia relying on the base of a tax invoice issued by the dealer at the time of sale of the vehicle and also contended that appropriate depreciation should have been deducted from the sale value of the vehicle for arriving at the Insured Declared Value.