RANJIT SINGH Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Shri Ranjit Singh filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act before the District Forum-I, U. T. , Chandigarh being Complaint Case No.674 of 1991 against the respondent-National Insurance Company Limited, Chandigarh seeking damage/ compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- with interest and litigation charges. The complainant was the owner of a Maruti Van bearing registration No. EIC-7267 which was of 1988 Model. The complainant got the said Van insured comprehensively with the respondent-National Insurance Company and he was issued Policy of Insurance No.424251 dated 8.12.1988. The amount for which the insurance was done was of a sum of Rs.87,000/-. The complainant was required to pay the premium of Rs.1,340/-. The complainant was plying the said Van as a private taxi. As per the averment made in the complaint, the said Maruti Van was involved with an accident with Bus bearing No. PJG-2846 on 16.6.1989 at about 5.30 a. m. near Village Patian situated within the District of Ludhiana in the State of Punjab. The Maruti Van, aforesaid, was badly damaged in the accident. A First Information Report was lodged regarding the accident and intimation was sent about the same to the respondent-Insurance Company which had appointed a Surveyor for assessing the loss. The complainant alleged further that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was spent by him on the repair of damaged Maruti Van. The respondent-Insurance Company after receiving the report of the Surveyor about the loss, did not settle the claim of the complainant. On the other hand, the respondent informed the complainant vide letter dated 20.3.1990 that his claim had been repudiated but no reasons were mentioned therefor. It has been averred in the complaint that the respondent-Insurance Company had illegally and with malafide motive repudiated the claim of the respondent. On these averments, the complaint was filed through Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate on 8.10.1990.

(2.) Upon issuance of notice of the complaint, the National Insurance Company, the respondent appeared before the District Forum and filed written statement contending, inter alia, that the complaint was not maintainable and deserved to be dismissed. It was denied that the complainant was the owner of the aforesaid Maruti Van. The said Maruti Van, it was alleged, was insured as a taxi. The respondent-Insurance Company after receiving the report of the Surveyor about the loss had informed the complainant about the repudiation of his claim. The claim was repudiated on the basis of the report of the Surveyor and on legal and justifiable grounds. The allegations of malafide were categorically denied. It was also denied that the claimant suffered a loss of Rs.50,000/-. The claim of interest @ 18% per annum on any amount of compensation was also denied.

(3.) Both the parties produced evidence in support of their respective cases before the District Forum. It appears from the perusal of the judgment of the District Forum, as also from the perusal of the record that during the course of hearing an offer was made from the side of the respondent-National Insurance Company to the effect that the claimant was at best entitled to get a sum of Rs, 22,500/-, The learned Counsel for the complainant had submitted before the District Forum that the complainant did not want to prolong the ease and was ready to accept the amount of Rs.22,500/- which was being offered by the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company. In view of the aforesaid understanding reached between the two sides, i. e. the complainant and the respondent, the District Forum decided the complaint and awarded the sum of Rs.22,500/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 19,11,1989 to the date of actual payment. The District Forum while dealing with the aforesaid submissions of the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company and the complainant observed in the last para of the judgment as under : "further Mr. Pardeep Bedi, Advocate, the learned Counsel for opposite party Company has submitted that there was overloading in the vehicle so as such complainant is not entitled to the full claim of Rs.30,000/-. He could at the best be given 75% of the loss assessed by the Surveyor which according to opposite party comes to Rs.22,500/-. The learned Counsel for complainant submitted that as opposite party Company had unilaterally and arbitrarily repudiated the claim and complainant stood deprived of the amount for which he was required to reimbursed, he does not want to prolong the case and further submitted that he is ready to accept Rs.22,500/-. Statement made by the learned Counsel for complainant is on record. In these set of circumstances a sum of Rs.22,500/- is awarded to the complainant to be paid by opposite party Insurance Company. As the Surveyor had given report on 19.8.1989, so by giving margin of three months which was to be consumed for processing the claim, the said amount should have been given by 19.11.1989 but as complainant stood deprived of the amount for which he was to be indemnified since then, so he is entitled to interest @ 12% p. a, on Rs, 22,500/- from the said date of 19,11,1989 to the date of actual payment. The complaint stands disposed of as such"