NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. ALLA MALLIKARJUNA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT was the opposite party before the State Commission, where the respondent complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

(2.) VERY briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent complainant was owner of one ˜Escorts Class Tiger Harvester, costing Rs.13,48,000 which was insured with the appellant Insurance Company for the period from 28.12.97 to 20.12.98. On 17.5.1998 the complainant stopped the machine for a while in the land of one Jalihal Lingappa Kruvar and then started loading the same in a lorry. Due to breakage in the hydraulic bolt, the machine could not be loaded. Hence the complainant went to Sindhanur in the lorry, to bring the bolt to repair the harvester. While he was in Sindhanur, he was informed by one of the persons that harvester machine was burning on account of fire accident. The complainant reached the spot, informed the Fire -Brigade who came and extinguished the fire. The appellant was also informed, who deputed a spot surveyor and after that the detailed surveyor report was also submitted based on which a payment of Rs.5,93,260 was offered, which was not acceptable to the respondent complainant as according to him he was entitled for more amount as according to him, the cost of the machine was Rs.13,48,000 and it had run for only 1 1/2 years. It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties, directed the appellant to pay Rs.l0, 78,000 along with interest @9% p.a. minus the amount of Rs.5,93,260 deposited with the State Commission and cost of Rs.10,000. Aggrieved by this order this appeal has been filed before us.

(3.) WE heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is the case of the appellant, that State Commission was not justified in giving the relief, which it did. Firstly, the State Commission gave a depreciation of 20% p.a. on 1 1/2 year old vehicle which was not in working condition, and had not worked for quite some time. Learned counsel for the appellant also drew our attention to the report of the surveyor wherein it is stated that the explanation given by the respondent to the surveyor on the cause of accident was not satisfactory. She also drew our attention to the contradiction between the statements made to the surveyor as also to the police. Contradiction pointed out is that before the State Commission, in the complaint, the complainants case was that he was trying to load the machine into a truck due to breakage of hydraulic bolt, where it caught fire but in a letter addressed to the appellant Insurer, it stated that while machine was coming out of the field after completing the work, a pipe which supplied oil to the system failed. Surveyor has also taken note of several other inconsistencies and discrepancies.