Appeal No.1366/08

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. V. Avdesh Singh


Before:


Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President

Mr.G.S.Hora-Member


Shri Jitendra Mitruka,counsel for the appellant

Shri Sagar Singh,counsel for the respondent


Date of judgement : 15.05.2009


BY THE STATE COMMISSION.


This appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company against the order dated 12.6.08 passed by the District Forum-I,Jaipur in complaint no.367/07,by which the complaint filed by the complainant respondent was allowed against the appellant insurance company in the manner that the appellant insurance company was directed to pay a sum of Rs.18,471/-,the amount as assessed by the surveyor with interest 8% p.a wef 12.2.07 and further the appellant was directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as amount of compensation for mental agony and Rs.2000/- as amount of cost and if the same was not paid within two months,the rate of interest charged would be 12% p.a.

2. It arises in the following circumstances:


That the complainant respondent had filed a complaint against the appellant insurance company before the District Forum-I,Jaipur on 23.3.05 interalia stating that he had got his Tata Indica car bearing no.RJ.14.CB.9437 insured with the appellant insurance company for the

2


period 14.8.06 to 13.8.07 for a sum of Rs.3,75,872/-. It was further stated in the complaint that on 21.12.06, the said vehicle had met with an accident and was damaged and information of that accident was also given by the complainant respondent to the office of the appellant insurance company and a surveyor was appointed and in getting the repair of that vehicle a sum of Rs.38,163/- were spent, but the claim of the complainant respondent was repudiated by the appellant insurance company through letter dated 12.2.07 interalia stating on the ground that at the time of accident,the vehicle in question was being used for commercial purposes. Thereafter the complaint was filed.


A reply was filed by the appellant insurance company on 26.6.07 before the District Forum and in the reply the appellant had taken the same pleas which were taken in the repudiation letter dated 1.2.207 and it was prayed that the claim was rightly repudiated and complaint be dismissed.


The District Forum after hearing both the parties.through the impugned order dated 12.6.08 had allowed the complaint taking into consideration the report of the surveyor, Shri Rameshwar Dayal Bansal who had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.18471.92 and that assessment was found just and thus,the appellant insurance company was directed to pay that amount and further had ordered that the appellant would further pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as amount of compensation and further the case of commercial use was not found.


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 the findings recorded by the District Forum by which the appellant was ordered to pay Rs.50,000/- as amount of compensation was not justified at all and to that extent,appeal be

3

allowed.


4. On the other hand,the learned counsel for the complainant respondent has supported the impugned order.


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


6. In our considered opinion,when the report of the surveyor had been accepted by the District Forum and looking to the fact that the complainant respondent himself claimed Rs.38,163/- as amount for the damage to the vehicle and when this amount had been ordered to be paid by the appellant insurance company to the complainant respondent alongwith interest @ 8% p.a,there ws no justification further for awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a but, no doubt, in such cases,the insured feels some inconvenience but for that awarding of Rs.50,000/- was not justified at all and that amount should be reduced to Rs.10,000/- in lumpsum in place of Rs.50,000/- and to that extent,the appeal deserves to be allowed.


7. For reasons as stated above,this appeal filed by the appellant insurance company is partly allowed in the manner that that part of the order by which Rs.50,000/- were ordered to be paid by the appellant insurance company to the complainant respondent with interest @ 12% p.a is quashed and set aside and it is ordered that the appellant insurance company would pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- in lumpsum to the complainant respondent in place of Rs.50,000/-. To the above extent,the impugned order dated 12.6.08 passed by the District Forum-I,Jaipur be treated as modified and rest order is maintained.




Member President