UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. NILAMANI PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS appeal has been directed against the orders dated 15. 4. 2004 in C. D. Case No. 52 of 2003 of the District Forum, Jajpur directing opposite parties, who are the appellants, to pay to the complainant/respondents Rs. 7,60,000 as insurance claim with interest @ 12% per annum from 1. 4. 2002 till payment is made and Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order, failing which to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the awarded amount from 1. 4. 2002. Vide said orders, District Forum has also directed opposite parties to clear up the dues of the financier of the Bus in question and to give the balance amount to the complainant.

(2.) FACTS of the case stated in brief are as follows: complainants, who are the owners of Ashok Leyland bus having registration No. OR-04-A-7755 styled as "panda Coach" has been insured with United India Insurance Company Limited, At/p. O. Jajpur Road, in short U. I. C. represented by opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 for the period from 23. 5. 2000 to 22. 5. 2001. On 21. 4. 2001 at about 1 a. m. near village Badakud on N. H. No. 6 when this insured vehicle was proceeding towards Olaver from Rourkela caught with fire as its front propeller shaft was broken and ruptured the fuel tank. Due to this accident, some passengers died and some were injured. One of the passengers - Rabindra Samal lodged F. I. R. on that date at about 2. 30 p. m. at Barkota P. S. and P. S. Case No. 40 of 2001 was registered. Complainants informed in respect to accident to the Branch Manager, U. I. C, opposite party No. 1 and lodged insurance claim. Opposite party No. 1 deputed Senior Surveyor - Sri Surajit Kumar Patnaik who after necessary investigation, assessed the damage at Rs. 6,81,000 to which complainants were agreeable to accept as insurance claim. But, when one year passed away and claim amount was not given to them, complainants approached to Divisional Manager, opposite party No. 2 who told them that Second Surveyor has been deputed to reassess the damage the bus. The Second Surveyor assessed damage to the tune of Rs. 7,60,000. But opposite parties did not disburse claim amount as Second Surveyor assessed loss more than the amount assessed by the First Surveyor. According to the complainants due to deficiency in service of the opposite parties, they are being harassed and are suffering from mental agony as they have purchased the bus from Pradeep Leasing on hire purchase basis and Pradeep Leasing is charging accrued interest of about Rs. 4 lakh. Thus, they claimed a total sum of Rs. 12,15,000 fully described in the prayer of the complaint.

(3.) THE opposite parties have challenged the cause of action and maintainability of the case as per their joint written version while denying to have caused deficiency in service to the complainants. They have admitted that the complainants as the owners of the said bus had entered into the said insurance policy for the aforesaid period. They do not dispute about the damage of the bus being caught with fire due to mechanical defect of the bus and assessment of loss stated by complainants as aforesaid by the aforesaid First Surveyor and during second survey through the Institute of Insurance Survey and Adjusters, Bhubaneswar on their own deputation. But, the opposite parties do not agree to settle the claim of the complainants on the following rounds that-