NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 1928 OF 2011
(Against the order dated 01.03.2011 in First Appeal No. 1025 of 2005 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh)
Inderjit Singh
S/o Narinder Singh
R/o House No. 17490,
Gali Khadar Bhandar Wali,
Bibi Wala Road,
Bathinda ... Petitioner
Versus
National Insurance Company Limited
The Mall, Bathinda through
its Divisional Manager, ... Respondent
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukand Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Nanita Sharma, Advocate
Pronounced on : 19th July, 2012
ORDER
JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. In the year 2001, Inderjeet Singh purchased a new truck/trolla. He obtained insurance policies from the respondent-National Insurance Company on 31.5.2003, which was valid from 31.5.2003 to 30.5.2004. The value declared by the petitioner was Rs.7 lakhs. On 9.2.2004, the above said vehicle of the petitioner was stolen. The FIR was lodged. The petitioner intimated the insurance company on 11.2.2004. The insurance company did not pay the insurance amount. Consequently, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum. The District Consumer Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the respondent-insurance company to pay Rs.4.20 lakh to the petitioner alongwith cost of Rs.1,000/- and interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 12.5.2004. The insurance company complied with the above said order.
2. However, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission for enhancement of compensation. The State Commission partly allowed the said appeal and enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs.4.20 lakh to Rs.6.30 lakh.
3. It is alleged that the State Commission has wrongly applied 10% depreciation, which is not permissible under the provisions of Insurance Act. The petitioner is entitled to insurance amount. Again, no interest was awarded.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The State Commission was pleased to hold:-
“19.The truck/trolla of the respondents was of 2001 Model. Its value as per the insurance policy for the period from 31.5.2003 to 30.5.2004 was Rs. 7 lacs. The theft had taken place on the night of 9.2.2004 i.e. after the expiry of about 8 months from the starting date of the insurance policy. Therefore, depreciation @10% would be justified. Therefore, the appellant is held entitled to the insurance claim for an amount of Rs.6,30,000/- (Rs.7,00,000/- - 10% i.e. Rs.70,000/-= Rs.6,30,000/-). However, the learned District Forum had applied the depreciation @40% which appears to be unjustified.
20. The interest awarded by the learned District Forum @9% p.a. from 12.5.2004 upto the furnishing of the indemnity bond by the appellant is upheld. The indemnity bond was to be furnished by the respondents as per the order of the learned District Forum within a period of 1 ½ months after the receipt of a copy of this order. Since the appellant had filed the appeal in this Commission after obtaining a copy of the impugned order dated 12.5.2004 on 9.8.2005, therefore, the interest is limited upto 30.9.2005.
21. The costs of Rs.1000/- are upheld.”
We have perused the order of the State Commission. It is quite reasonable and fair. It hardly calls for interference. After obtaining the insurance policy the petitioner had used the abovesaid vehicle for about 9 months. The vehicle was purchased in the year 2001. The passage of nine months must have further depreciated the value of the said vehicle. Consequently, depreciation at the rate of 10% appears to be quite reasonable. The revision petition is therefore dismissed.
………………Sd/-…..………..
(J. M. MALIK, J)
PRESIDING MEMBER
……………Sd/-.……………
(VINAY KUMAR)
MEMBER
Naresh/12
