SHER SINGH SHOBTA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two cross-appeals. While First Appeal No.454 of 2007 has been filed by Sher Singh Shobta, Complainant before the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), being aggrieved by the lesser amount awarded to him by the State Commission, First Appeal No. 550 of 2007 has been filed by National Insurance Company Ltd., Respondent before the State Commission, being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission which had partly allowed the complaint of Sher Singh Shobta and directed the National Insurance Company Ltd. to pay him Rs.2,28,000/- in settlement of his insurance claim subject to return of salvage on "as is where is" basis alongwith compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs. The State Commission had also directed the National Insurance Company Ltd. to fix responsibility on the officer who had delayed in settling the insurance claim and directed that the interest amount of Rs.1,48,578/- be recovered from the defaulting officer.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Complainant who was owner of a Tata truck bearing registration no. HP-07 1429 had got the said truck insured from 01.11.1996 to 31.10.1997 with the Opposite Party/Insurance Company for a sum of Rs.3,80,000/-. The aforesaid truck met with an accident on 30.04.1997 near Darlaghat in Solan District, when it fell 1700 feet into a deep gorge resulting in its total loss. Complainant immediately informed the Opposite Party/Insurance Company about the accident and an FIR was also lodged on the same day at Police Station Darlaghat. Opposite Party/Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor, who inspected the site as also the vehicle and submitted a report to the Opposite Party/Insurance Company. Thereafter, the Complainant recovered the salvage from the spot of the accident which took over a month at a cost of Rs.50,000/- for carrying it to Shimla, where it is still lying in a store since it cannot be used. The storage charge is being borne by the Complainant till date. Although the Complainant informed the Opposite Party/Insurance Company about the accident and the total loss of the vehicle stating that it was not repairable, Opposite Party/Insurance Company did not settle the claim. Complainant, therefore, issued a legal notice requesting for settlement of the claim within 15 days but still received no response. Since Complainant was deprived of his livelihood and had also to pay back the loan which he had taken from H.P. Financial Corporation at high rate of interest for the vehicle, he filed a complaint before the State Commission on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that the Opposite Party/Insurance Company be directed to pay him a sum of Rs.6,55,000/- as per the following details : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_673_NCDRC_2013_1.html</FRM>

(3.) Opposite Party/Insurance Company on being served denied that there was any deficiency in service. It was contended that the Complainant himself was responsible for the delay in the settlement of insurance claim as he did not supply the required documents, including the original driving license of the driver. Further, the vehicle was got inspected through a Technical Surveyor M/s Esquire Technocrats, who vide their report dated 05.08.1997 assessed the damage to the vehicle at Rs.1,48,578.28 ps. but the Complainant was adamant that it should be assessed on total loss basis and demanded the full sum insured. Opposite Party/Insurance Company had informed the Complainant that subject to supply of required documents, the claim would be settled as per the amount assessed by the Surveyor, which he failed to do and instead filed a complaint before the State Commission.