Appeal No.666/06


United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Appellant

V.

1.

Data Ram, R/o Motuka,Alwar
2.

LIC of Inida,Jaipur.
3.

LIC of India,Chennai
4.

Smt.Champa Devi.
5.

Vijendra Singh Respondents


Before

Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President

Mr.Sikander Punjabi-Member


Shri Abhishek Bhandari,counsel for the appellant

None for respondent no.1

Shri Prashant Mantri,counsel for res.nos. 2 & 3

None for res.no. 4 & 5



Date of judgement : 28.05.2009


BY THE STATE COMMISSION.


This appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company which was op no.1 before the District Forum,Alwar against the order dated 20.3.06 passed by the District Forum,Alwar in complaint no.69/2003,by which the complaint of the complainant respondent no.1 was allowed against the appellant in the manner that the appellant was directed to pay Rs.20,000/-within one month, failing which the appellant would pay interest @ 9% p.a on th above amount.


2

2. It arises in the following circumstances:


That the complainant respondent no.1 had filed a complaint against the appellant as well as against other respondents before the District Forum,Alwar on 13.2.03 interalia stating that the tractor bearing registration no.RJ.02.1 R.2419 was got insured with the appellant insurance company for the period 20.3.01 to 19.3.02 for a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- and that tractor was stolen away for which FIR no.40/01 was lodged on 16.4.01 with the police station,Kishangarh bas and there is no dispute between the parties on the issue and the information of the theft was also given by complainant res.no.1 to the office of the appellant insurance company and as per the case of the appellant insurance company, as per the survey report of Shri Mradul Khandelwal dated 10.2.02 a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- were found payable and a sum of Rs.2,58,500/- were sent to the complainant res.no.1 through the bank from which the complainant res.no.1 had taken the loan and the same were received by the complainant res.no.1. But the case of the complainant res.no.1 in his complaint was that since the vehicle in question was insured for a sum of Rs.3,20,000/-,therefore,that amount was not just and complaint was filed.


A reply was filed by the appellant insurance company before the District Forum on 10.12.03 and the case of the appellant insurance company was that no doubt,the tractor in question was insured for a sum of Rs.3 lacs and assessories were insured for a sum of Rs.20,000/- and since the amount was assessed to the tune of Rs.2,60,000/-,therefore,it was rightly offered and further since that amount was accepted by the complainant res.no.1 in full and final settlement of the claim and,therefore,the complainant res.no.1 was not entitled to more amount and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.


The District Forum after hearing both the parties had not

3


accepted the case as put up by the appellant insurance company and had passed the impugned order as stated above, interalia holding that the present case was not a case of payment in full and final settlement as the cheque /draft in question was sent by the appellant insurance company to the bank and from there the payment was received and thus it was not a payment of full and final settlement of the claim.


Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company.


3. In this appeal,the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company is that since the complainant res.no.1 had accepted Rs.2,58,500/- in full and final settlement of the claim,therefore,the award of Rs.20,000/- more was not justified at all and thus the findings of the District Forum are erroneous one and be quashed and set aside and appeal be allowed.


4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.


5. In our considered opinion,the findings recorded by the District Forum should be upheld because of the following reasons:


6. That in case of theft generally,the insured amount is paid by the insurance company and in the present case it has not happened. So far as the question whether Rs.2,58,500/- are accepted by the complainant res.no.1 in full and final settlement of the claim is concerned,it may be stated here that if payment in question would have been made directly to the complainant res.no.1 by the appellant insurance company,the position would have been different one,therefore,if the payment was made first to the bank and if the same was credited and accepted by the complainant that could not be treated as a full and final discharge of the claim.

4

7. For reasons as stated above,we are in agreement with the findings recorded by the District Forum and we see no reason to interfere with the findings as the District Forum has not passed a decree for the full amount for which the vehicle was insured and on the contrary,only a sum of Rs.20,000/- were ordered to be paid by the appellant insurance company to the complainant res.no.1 and thus the District Forum had not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order and this appeal deserves to be dismissed.


8. The result is that this appeal filed by the appellant insurance company is dismissed.




Member President