JAGDISH THAPLIYAL Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 4.3.2009 passed by the Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (in short, 'the State Commission') in consumer complaint no.08 of 2008. By the impugned order, the State Commission has upheld the preliminary objection raised by the opposite party in regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission to entertain and try the complaint and has directed the complaint to be returned to the complainant with liberty reserved to him to file fresh complaint after suitably reducing the claim amount.

(2.) The consumer dispute raised before the State Commission related to non-settlement of insurance claim by the Insurance Company in respect of loss suffered to a JCB excavator loader, which was purchased by the complainant at a price of Rs. 19,20,210 85 but insured in the sum of Rs. 18,24,200/-, the JCB excavator met with an accident on 05.10.06 and suffered serious damage. Insurance Company being informed of the loss/ damage to the insured machine, appointed M/s M.K. Jain and Co. as Surveyors to assess the damage and the insured also obtained an estimate for repairs of the accidented machine from JCB Auto Distributors Pvt. Ltd., who gave the repair estimate of Rs. 14,38,086/-. However, based on the report of the Surveyor, the Insurance Company offered to settle the insurance claim of the insured at Rs. 7,71,496/- with a proposed deduction of Rs. 1,15,574/- towards salvage. The offer was not acceptable to the complainant as according to him, it was a case of total loss of the machine and, therefore, he was entitled to the entire insured sum of Rs. 18,24,200/-, besides certain other charges and compensation due to the timely non-settlement of the insurance claim. Accordingly, the complainant filed the complaint making a total claim of Rs. 33,23,773/- under the following heads:

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the opposite party-Insurance Company raising a preliminary objection in regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission to entertain and try the complaint so filed before the State Commission on the ground that the complainant had unduly exaggerated his claim to the above extent and the claim could not exceed to more than Rs. 20 lakh in any view of the matter and such the complaint could be entertained and tried only by a District Forum constituted under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act'). On consideration of the said objection, the State Commission has held that so far as the claim for compensation on account of loss of business/earnings including price escalation of the machine cannot be granted under the provisions of the Act. Similarly the State Commission held that the claim of interest to the extent of Rs. 6,64,992/- could not have been included in the subject matter of the complaint for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction. The State Commission, therefore, took the view that if these items were to be excluded the claim in the complaint will not exceed Rs. 20 lakh and made the impugned order.