ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member.
1. The appellant-National Insurance Company was the opposite party before the State Commission where a complaint had been filed by the respondent/complainant for deficiency in service.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent/complainant owned a Tata diesel vehicle which was insured with the Insurance Company for Rs. 7.25 lakhs, which met with an accident on 18.4.1996. The complainant had a valid insurance cover from the appellant. The Surveyor having been appointed, in its report made three alternative assessments of loss/liability :
3. It appears that the complainant had also got the loss assessed through his Surveyor who estimated the loss at Rs. 7,95,404/-. Perhaps based on its own Surveyor’s assessment, the complainant did not accept the claim at Rs. 6,25,000/- on total loss basis and also the valuation of salvage at Rs. 2,20,000/-. Since the matter was not get settled, a complaint came to be filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties directed the appellant to pay Rs. 6,25,000/- along with interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of actual payment plus cost of Rs. 2,000/-. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed.
At the time of admitting the appeal, the notice to the respondent was issued limited to the question of payment of interest, cost and return of salvage. In the meantime, the respondent company was directed to pay Rs. 4,50,000/- to the complainant without prejudice to its right and contentions.
4. We heard the parties. There is no disputing the fact that the Surveyors are appointed by the Insurance Company under the provision of the Insurance Act and their reports are to be given due importance and one should have sufficient grounds not to agree with the assessment made by them. In view of which, we have no hesitation in not taking into consideration any report by any Surveyor appointed by the complainant. There is no dispute that there were three alternatives suggested by the Surveyor as already mentioned above to indemnify the loss to the complainant. There is also no dispute that the complainant wanted to settle the whole claim on ‘Total Loss Basis’. Net assessment in this regard was worked out at Rs. 6,24,500.00 by the Surveyor and the salvage value was placed at Rs. 2,25,000.00 leaving the net liability of the appellant company at Rs. 3,99,500.00. Admittedly, the salvage is still lying and is available with the complainant. In view of this fact it is for the appellant to collect this salvage as a result of which the appellant should be paying in all Rs. 6,24,500/- as assessed by the Surveyor on ‘Total Loss Basis’ along with interest @ 10% p.a. from 3 months after the receipts of the Surveyor report, i.e., 1.8.1996. At the time of payment of amount as directed, the interest for the total amount shall run upto the date of payment of Rs. 4.5 lakhs after which date, till the date of payment, the interest shall be payable for the remaining principal amount.
5. We see no merit in the contention of the appellant that no interest is payable as they had made this offer long time back but it cannot be disputed that a person, who has lost his truck was without money of any nature and no effort was made by the appellant to send a cheque for any amount. There is also material on record that the appellant was asked by the complainant way back on 14.10.1996 to take away the salvage but no action was taken at their end. It is this extent that the appellant was deficient in service and for this purpose that interest @ 10% p.a. is being awarded as already indicated above.
6. The order of the State Commission shall stand modified to above extent and there shall be no order as to costs.