IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI
(Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 )
Date of Decision: 12-04-2007
Appeal No. A-201/2003
(Arising from the order dated 19-10-2002, passed by the District Forum-II, Institutional Area, Behind Gutab Hotel,, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.2502/1998)
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Appellant
Delhi Regional Office-II, Through
2E/9, Jhandewalan Extn., Ms.Sonia Sharma,
New Delhi-110055. Advocate.
Versus
Shri R.K. Jerath, Respondent
S/o Sh. M.K. Jerath, Through
R/o C-1/1251, Vasant Kunj, Mr. Satyajit Patra,
New Delhi-110016. Advocate.
CORAM :
Justice J.D. Kapoor- President
Mr. Rumnita Mittal- Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL)
Admittedly the Maruti Car of the respondent was insured for an amount of Rs. 3,92,000/- for the period from 19-04-1996 to 18-04-1997 whereas the vehicle was stolen on the intervening night of 26-01-1997 and 27-01-1997 i.e. during the subsistence of the policy. Respondent lodged a complaint with Police Station Hauz Khas. The police filed untraced report dated 22-05-1997. Surveyor was appointed to assess the market value who assessed the market value at the time of theft at Rs. 2,00,000/-. The car had been financed by SRF Finance Limited and the interest on the loan was increasing day by day. Due to this the respondent accepted an amount of Rs. 2,60,000/- only in settlement of his claim which was settled in the last week of December, 1997. The respondent has claimed the balance amount of Rs. 1,32,000/- along with interest which was rejected by the appellant on the ground that the claim was settled at Rs. 2,60,000/- after the respondent gave written consent and that the market value at the time of theft of the car was only Rs. 2,60,000/-. Feeling dissatisfied the respondent filed the instant complaint for recovery of the balance insurance amount of Rs. 1,32,000/- along with interest.
2. Vide impugned order dated 19th October, 2002 the District Forum allowed the complaint by directing the appellant to pay the balance of Rs. 1,32,000/- with 12% interest from 01-01-1998 till the date of payment and also allowed compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for the harassment undergone by the respondent and a sum of rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
4. We have taken a consistent view that once the insurance amount has been fixed and corresponding premium has been received, the market value of the vehicle at the time of insurance has to be deemed as the insurance amount and it is not open to the Insurance Company to reassess or re-evaluate the market value at the time of theft or damage or loss. We have also taken a view that at the most the Insurance Company can assess the market value by depreciating the value at 5% per year in respect of the passenger vehicle and 10% per year in case of commercial vehicle. If the Insurance Companies are allowed to appoint surveyors to reassess the market value of the vehicle which in this case was assessed about Rs. 1,32,000/- less than the insurance amount the very purpose of receiving corresponding premium at specific insurance amount would loose its meaning and purpose. Insurance amount is fixed as per value assessed by the company at the time of issuing the policy and not as per whim as claimed by the insured.
5. No service provider can be allowed to take double benefit. At first instance the Insurance Company receives premium at a higher value of the vehicle and when their turn to indemnify the loss comes then they reassess the value, which at times is even half of the insurance amount or 2/3rd of the insurance amount. Such an exercise is not only illegal but also operates adversely to the interests of the consumer.
6. Similarly doctrine of estoppel or resjudicata is not applicable in respect of complaints filed under the Consumer Protection Act as section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act entitles the consumer to an amount as compensation as to the actual loss or injury suffered by him and if under certain circumstances or may be by consent he accepts lesser amount due to financial stringency it does not disentitle him to seek actual amount of compensation as to the loss or injury suffered by him. These doctrines are available only in the civil suits and under the Code of Civil Procedure. Under the Consumer Protection Act the rules and orders prescribing the pleadings are not applicable. Even a layman can file complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act and such complaints are not governed by the rules and orders by prescribing suit for recovery.
7. It is human nature to accept whatever is offered to such a consumer because he has already suffered financially so much that he is always in need of money and therefore to say that since the consumer had given endorsement of full and final settlement as to the amount which he was offered and is therefore not entitled to open up the issue again is not only legally untenable but also not permissible under the Consumer Protection Act which is an additional and independent remedy for seeking compensation. To obtain such an endorsement and force the consumer to accept such a low amount is nothing short of unfair and arm-twisting practice.
8. Compensation includes mental injury, emotional suffering, physical discomfort, injustice done to a consumer by the service provider besides the actual loss and that is why interest is paid by way of compensation on equitable ground in spite of the fact that there is no such term of contract between the parties.
9. Proceeding on the aforesaid premise we partly allow the appeal by directing the appellant to pay Rs. 1,32,000/- less 5% as depreciated value and maintain rest of the order.
10. Payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
11. Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.
12. F.D.R./Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.
13. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
14. Announced on the 12th April, 2007.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor)
President
(Rumnita Mittal)
Member
|
