NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. INDERJEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, chandigarh, whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal. The facts in brief which led the complainant to approach the State Commission are as follows :

(2.) The complainant got her truck insured with the opposite party Insurance Company for a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs, which truck was alleged to have been stolen in the year 1999 and an F.I.R. was lodged to that effect. The fact of the theft had been brought to the notice of the Insurance Company immediately. The complainant submitted the claim form claiming the insured value of Rs. 4 lakhs. Along with the claim form the complainant also enclosed a copy of the F.I.R. Thereafter, the complainant also submitted details regarding movement of the truck between 1.6.1999 to 13.6.1999. Since the Insurance Company did not settle the claim for a long time, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission claiming a sum of Rs. 9 lakhs which comprises Rs. 4 lakhs representing the sum assured, Rs. 3 lakhs for deficiency on service, loss of business etc. and Rs. 2 lakhs for mental agony and litigation expenses.

(3.) In response to the notice issued by the State Commission the opposite party filed reply wherein it had admitted the factum of insurance of the truck in question and the sum assured. It is clear from the record that the first Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company submitted his report on 31st August, 1999 and thereafter another Surveyor was also appointed by the Insurance Company who assessed the loss at Rs. 3.35 lakhs. The opposite party No. 3, M/s. R.B. Hire Purchase and Finance Company had submitted an affidavit, as required by the Insurance Company, to the effect that the vehicle in question was stolen and not confiscated by itself, i.e. M/s. R.B. Hire Purchase and Finance Co. During the pendency of the complaint, i.e. on 26th February, 2001, the complainant received a cheque for Rs. 3.35 lakhs in part payment. The State Commission, after thoroughly going into the facts of the case, returned the finding that the complainant was not entitled to claim Rs. 3 lakhs on account of mental agony, loss of business, etc. As far as the claim of the complainant regarding the insured amount of Rs. 4 lakhs is concerned the State Commission held as under : "It is relevant to point out that the report of the Surveyor is based on his enquiry made from the market. The report also shows the condition of the truck being good as it claimed 35% 'No claim bonus'. The learned Counsel for the complainant contended that the value of the truck was already taken into consideration at the time of the insurance and no further depreciation should be allowed on the truck. Apart from it, the Surveyor did not file his own affidavit in support of his averment regarding making enquiry from the market regarding the price of the truck. The truck itself was not available due to being stolen and keeping into consideration the good condition of the truck already noted by the Surveyor, there was no reasonable basis for the Surveyor to assess the value of the truck less than the amount for which the truck was insured on 15th July, 1998. We are thus of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to get the entire amount of sum assured, i.e. a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs under the terms policy."