UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. RANDHAWA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent/complainant, who has appeared in-person. Respondent/complainant states that he has not been paid the amount of Rs.5,000 as directed by this Commission. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the sum Rs.5,000 has been sent to Regional Office (Ludhiana) for being dispatched at the home address of the respondent/complainant. In case the draft is returned undelivered, the Counsel undertakes to send the draft to complainant's army address.

(2.) Main grievance of the respondent/complainant in the present case is that his insured vehicle met with an accident. Even though a Surveyor was appointed by the petitioner Insurance Company, the Surveyor never gave him or apprised him about his report. On the contrary, the Surveyor persuaded him accept a sum of Rs. 74,000 on cash-loss basis and settle the matter. Even though the complainant was not quite satisfied with the said offer, believing the version of the Surveyor at the offered amount shall be paid within a month, he agreed to issue a letter dated 15.9.2004, stating therein that the proposal of Rs. 75,000 as cash-loss basis is acceptable to him. Otherwise, he had indicated the figure of Rs.1,00,000 on account of total loss basis. The respondent/complainant submits that so persuasive was the Surveyor's behaviour that he believed him to be true to his words but the facts turned out otherwise. The Insurance Company neither reimbursed the repair charges as offered by the Surveyor and dragged on the matter for years together. At one stage they even tried to fabricate a false charge of the Complainant's driving licence being invalid, just to harass him. This, however, they could not prove from the concerned transport authority. He, therefore, contends that being a serving defence officer, he has been put to enormous harassment and mental agony for which the compensation awarded by the State Commission is just and appropriate.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner on the other hand has relied upon the same letter dated 15.9.2004 and has contended that the complainant being an educated person having given the offer for settlement, could not now go back and say that it was under coercion. His further contention is that the report of independent Surveyor was rightly relied upon by the District Forum and for the period of delay, he has been awarded interest @ 12% p.a. which is more than sufficient to the injury/damage caused to the complainant. According to him the report of the independent Surveyor should not have been discarded by the State Commission as it carries sufficient weightage for determination of the compensation. He, therefore, prays that the order of the State Commission being highly irregular and beyond jurisdiction be set aside.