VINOD KUMAR NAGRATH Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST Appeal No. 177/94 by the complainant Shri Vinod Kumar Nagrath and the Cross First Appeal No. 291/94 by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. are directed against the order dated 7.2.94 passed by the State Commission, Delhi directing the Insurance Company to Pay Rs. 2,05,000/- together with interest @ 15% per annum from 1st May, 1992 till the date of payment.

(2.) THE material facts which are not in dispute may be noticed. The complainant had obtained a comprehensive Insurance Policy No. 21221/109/00000/31/92/10156 for a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- by paying a premium of Rs. 4,270/-from Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. effective from 23.7.91 to 22.7.92 in respect of Goods Carrying Vehicle (Commercial) Registration No. D.B.L. 6438, owned by him. The said vehicle met with an accident on 18.12.91 on G.T. Road near Net Ram Puri after crossing Bulandshahar. The intimation about the accident and loss/damage of the vehicle was given to the Insurance Co. on 19.12.91 at New Delhi Office which wanted the complainant to also give intimation to Bulandshahar Office of the Insurance Co. The intimation was given to them on 24.12.91. The Insurance Co. appointed Shri S.C. Tayal Surveyor and Less Assessor who conducted the spot survey of the damaged vehicle on 25.12.91. F.I.R. No. 687 dated 24.12.91 was lodged with Police Station, Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar. There is no dispute that the Insurance Co. had agreed to indemnify the complainant against loss or damage to the said vehicle and its accessories while thereon on account of accident, external means besides other risks and that the loss/damage caused to the said vehicle as a result of accident on 18.12.91 is duly covered in the risks. It is also not the case of Insurance Co. that any terms or conditions of the said policy have been violated or the case is excepted under any exception clause. The dispute then centres round the quantum of loss or damages or other claims.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records with their help. The submission of the complainant's Counsel is that the vehicle damaged in the accident on 18.12.91 has not been repaired as the Insurance Co. did not settle his just claim and the losses and liabilities have been increased due to his inability to bring the vehicle on road due to withholding of the payments by the Insurance Co. The contention is that his modest claim of Rs. 90,000/- for loss of earning should have been allowed in toto. The Counsel also urged that the other items of claim of the complainant of Rs. 48,000/- for damage to the Dalla, Rs. 25,000/-damages to the engine head, Rs. 15,000/- towards taxes and Rs. 10,000/-towards penalty on taxes should have also been allowed. On the other hand the Counsel for the Insurance Co. urged that the complainant is only entitled to Rs. 61,292/- as assessed by the final Surveyors subject to furnishing actual cash memos/invoices on completion of repairs to the said vehicle. It is contended that in the final survey report the delay was explained attributing it to the complainant and thus the complainant is not entitled to any interest.